Politics, Power, Money and Law in Higher Education - Report Example

Politics, Power, Money and Law in Higher Education Table of Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….…3 Politics, Power, Money and Law…………………………….…………………………...4 Politics and Power in Higher Education………………………………….……………………………………...5 Money and Law in Higher Education…………………………………………………………………………7 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….11 References……………………………………………………………………………….12 Introduction The United States Higher Education System is renowned worldwide as one that is of very high quality and thus claimed and envied to be one of the best if not foremost in the world. Not only is it accessible to majority of Americans but also, for generations already, it continually provides an avenue for training highly skilled workers and professionals. In this way it equips the country a solid backbone as it is the reason for the creation of a huge and concrete middle class. Recently, however, changes have been taking place. More and more students from different socio-economic classes are competitively trying to gain entry to universities and colleges where public funding is already running low, and higher education systems of countries worldwide are revolutionizing theirs to actually be able to measure up in the global economic race. Most of these changes, directly or indirectly, are most likely to affect the way the higher education system will work in generations to come. However, it is important to note that there are major factors in play in the transformation and evolution of higher education in the United States. Politics and the people behind it who wield the power, the money to back them up, the law forging their protection, and the intricate balance of all these four in relation to higher education are actually noteworthy of investigation. Politics and Power, Money and Law Politics, power, money, and law are factors that are never quite really exclusive. In the United States and everywhere else, it is nevertheless impossible for someone to actually take one of each and make it stand alone. There is a very cyclic form of dependency among these different factors. Politics is claimed to be all about power, and money is a form of power. Thus it can be assumed that politicians with money are in power and that if they remain having the money they remain in power. Influence of money in politics is very strong such that despite the best efforts of reformers it will be virtually impossible to remove it (Troy, 1997). Since it seems to be a necessary evil in politics, it is not surprising that politicians would devise ways in keeping money in reach, such as drafting laws or legislations only when funding or donations are available. This way they exercise another kind or power—that is control over institutions, interested groups, and even the public. Laws are thought to be the results and tools of politicians to maintain their power; second only is that fact they are necessary for reforms or some other reasons. There is a very high probability the laws are even drafted to the advantage of the legislator as this may be a form of protection of their interests. Higher education is not exempted from all of these; it is also a victim of the same system. To further give light on the way these factors affect and work on the higher education, the succeeding section will provide ample examples. Higher Education’s Politics and Power Politics and power in education can actually be categorized into two: one which is above the system, i.e. the federal government, and one that is within the system. It is important to be aware that the one above the higher education system possesses more control. Currently, to address the issues on reforms on higher education, a bill from the senate and the congress has been passed. President Bush’s goal of refurbishing the education system is thus near completion. This is aimed to revolutionize the routines of the different sectors of the higher education system. However, before this can even be passed into a law, a debate between the House and the Senate is necessary to work out the differences in their versions of the bill. Negotiators from both sides are supposed to agree and standardize their versions even before President Bush could even sign it into a law. Discussions pertaining to the educational standards in the country have been problematic and awkward, to say the least. Nevertheless, they symbolize an accurate enactment of the principles of “dispersed control and political pluralism” (Elmore, 2006). The public, however, views higher education in the perspective of the individual student and as a consumer, wherein the public realizes the need of education as mode of social ascendancy and way to provide better living. Those in power, realizing the threat posed by education, limit its access especially to those they deem as their workforce or their proletarian population. These limiting actions could be best expressed by policies that hinder the easy access of higher education for those who are need. In advent of these circumstances, the American majority, not surprisingly shift to the usage of community colleges to lower down the costs of operation, and to fully utilize the college facilities present by holding night classes and via the use of internet. These can be seen yet as another subtle but increasingly important aspect of power in the new era: the ability of a system, or society, to sense the need for change and to adapt as claimed by Immerwahr et al. (2007). To where does control for education actually lie is actually still under considerable deliberation. Currently, however, power is shared between the national and state governments, where states are believed to be the ones exercising the most control. As with other stipulations between the two, the federal government utilizes the risk of reduced funding to impose laws concerning education (US Department of Education, 2006). In addition, there are distinct kinds of control within each state. Nevertheless, under the current administration, programs like the No Child Left Behind Act have endeavored to establish more central control in an immensely decentralized structure. A state governance system controls public comprehensive institutions. Institutions such as these usually run with a demand for cheaper or modest tuition prices and they are chiefly funded by states from what they collect from taxes (Formula of Reform, 1989). Majority of these schools follow a history of teacher education where there is an emphasis on a strong teaching practice as they where initially recognized as normal schools or teachers colleges. The suitable equilibrium between instruction and scholarship fundamentally resolves the record, mission, and purpose of an institution. Yet despite the fact that over the past two decades the bulk of these institutions have already been promoted to become universities, majority of the people around are still asking, “what does a university “operationally” means anyway?” And most of these people are still trying to realize what the function of research is when they are so hooked on a very strong tradition of teaching. And this tradition still endures over the communities surrounding these kinds of institutions they see as teachers colleges. State legislation, however, sometimes delineates the operation of these schools such that they have little means to build their own culture and identify their priorities main concerns. In both their public commentaries and their legislative dealings, the roles of comprehensive vs. research institutions are clearly being distinguished by legislators. The general public thinks that money collected from people’s taxes should shoulder low costs and improve the quality and accessibility of education at comprehensive institutions. Legislators on the other hand also believe this should be the case. Grossman (1996) and Lehming (1997) however, report of news bulletins that preempt external support for research initiatives at these kinds of institutions, as they imply increased costs that may be caused by actually doing research. People don’t or fail to see the value of research when it comes to education. They even accuse the members of the faculty of pursuing personal interests over what they are supposed to be doing—teaching. They even claim that these would result to the degradation of the quality of education at their schools. Currently, the mission of the public comprehensives has been redefined by state legislators to include economic development. Legislators push for these schools to collaborate with businesses. Such that they may operate to endorse new companies especially those that are focusing on high technology development. Doing this would actually help in their compensation, and their raising funds. Materials needed for their development would then be provided for. Husic (2003) reports that The Reinvention Center at Stony Brook clearly identifies and stresses that there is a real tendency for partnerships between businesses and communities to result in higher education innovation and improvement. Thus it is seen that members of the faculty should in fact cooperate with local businesses even though they are not really qualified. It seems that people see this as their jobs—to establish ties and make efforts to bring some money to education. Carefulness must be implemented because even though initiatives such as these can lead to a lot of beneficial stuff for the institution, they may also direct institutions to switch their mission to a different one such as diminished educational priorities. Opportunities for students such as research, internships, and work are offered by projects. It should be known by most, however, that members of faculties at local public comprehensive schools have very tight schedules, thus they must be taken seriously into account. Institutions must take caution to conserve an admiration for the significance of basic scientific research and keep away from circumstances where only applied research like that which has abrupt financial settlement for the institution is valued. Wlodkowski et al. (2001) report on the relationship of workforce training and educational development, and that it may be a necessary consequent of educational development. As such they assert that legislators perceive training displaced workers in technology competent regions as a critical role of public institutions. Thus, there is demand on public universities by both lawmakers and state system governing organizations to come up with degree completion schemes, distance education linkages to trade spots, and other alternatives to non-conventional learning. State lawmakers have started to redefine the objective of the public comprehensives to incorporate economic progress. Universities are now being advised to not just collaborate with regional businesses, but also to hasten the development of new corporations – specifically in the arena of new technology. Institutions are compensated with economic progress funding and capital for infrastructure and facilities that would otherwise be inaccessible. Stony Brook’s The Reinvention Center has classified this movement towards community and industry collaborations with the academe as a “reinvention” in advanced education. There are fresh expectations for personnel to interact with local businesses and organizations even if a teaching staff’s knowledge and research concentrations do not have much to do with the projects being undertaken. Regardless of the many political hurdles encountered by public comprehensive organizations, modifications in objective may take place. Proof of this is shown in recent initiatives associated with economic progress and personnel training, and the fact that many universities have created thriving undergraduate research programs. Faculty staffs at these schools allude to the following crucial factors: a crux of teaching personnel consigned to undergraduate research; sound support from administration; and partnerships with associates at other institutions or industries. Nevertheless, there is much more that needs to be accomplished in order to aid institutions that are still dealing with obstacles in their efforts to expand undergraduate research programs, specifically in the recent economic climate. People and institutions that visibly recognize the value of undergraduate research in the educational arena should become politically dynamic. Money and Law in Higher Education In every aspect of life money and legislation is seen to be a major compelling factor. In the medical and allied field, which is a part of higher education and which higher education greatly affects, they see that one valuable way to shape health care, assure better quality, and care for patients is through legislation and the money that. How do money and legislation and money affect higher education anyway? Up to 70 percent of students do not have enough money to pay tuition and must depend on the help of institutions that lend money, student loans and scholarships, and the federal government. According to Goodnough (2002), majority of the public schools impose requires elevated rates for out-of-state students as a result of each state’s allocation for its school system with state taxes. The United State is one country with intricate school funding system. One good example is the No Child Left Behind Act which gathers a lot of issues and questions. Goodnough (2002) notices that despite everything, however, that several groups, especially the teachers, usually request for additional funding from the government. A very big question that has to be answered today, on the other hand, by most of the people concerned with education is, “is higher education for sale?” Burd (2004) reports that in almost every degree, for the last 25 years there is considerable growth over the dollars flowing to the lawmakers in charge of higher-education policy. Investigation of the Chronicle reveals “that over the last year and a half, officials with the loan industry and proprietary institutions have given, individually and through political-action committees, or PAC's, almost $1-million in campaign contributions to the 49 members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, according to Federal Election Commission records through the end of May.” Customarily, political cycles existing for an assortment of public policy issues— successions which interchange between that is related to enhancing quality and that concerns improving access—affect the federal policy related to the goals of financing higher education according to Nora and Horvaths (1989). Campaigne and Hossler (1998) reports that student success and achievement may be due to the influence of financial assistance programs but also points out that policies on financial aids have not been well thought out. However, it is very appealing to note that improvements in financial aid policy of the federal government have been steered by clear objectives, very good and rational planning, and related information. There have been numerous attempts at tackling the problem of financing the cost of higher education and these have coincided with the relevant political notions of the past two decades that centered on accountability and effectiveness. Federal grants, which should support the belief that society is the one that benefits, have been significantly lessened in the past several years. A result of this shift has been a noticeable rise in student indebtedness and a frantic search for other means by which a student may finance his university education. This usually means credit card usage. The effect has been that college graduates who come from low-income households, as well as students who leave school are left with debts not only to the government but to credit card institutions as well. While those who have had the opportunity to graduate from college enjoy the perks that come with a college degree, the task of repaying the huge debts they have acquired while in school offset the benefits. The past decade boasts of radically changed federal level operations. Nowadays, there is less stress on need-based loan schemes and more on financed grants. Whereas low-income families and individuals are still a federal priority, most of the more recent programs have been geared towards the middle class. The standpoint of the federal government has certainly been changed in relation to the other institutions by direct lending. Goodnough (2007) observes that there was a shift of financial aid dollars from low-income to middle-income families due to the contribution of tax credits. Institutions are now required to share their accounts which have far more information than they would like on the issues of behaviors, activities, and outcomes, that recently have not been a matter of federal concern in spite of more and more well-organized federal petition efforts by organizations in behalf of the community of the higher education institutions. And the latest federal necessities do not conclude with the accounting of data. Prisco (2007) reports on new standards that have been classified in regions such as loan default rates, with necessary penalties given to institutions that have been ascertained to have been below satisfactory levels. Official approval, traditionally, has been the area of discipline-based and institution-based associations. At the present these organizations must function under federal supervision and implement federal coverage necessities. The higher education community has reacted with censure, validations and fearful forecast. A lot of these evaluations are sensible from the standpoint of the conventional higher education venture. Prisco (2002) sees, however, that more and more, the enterprise is not really very traditional and that the opinion of the public sees firmly on the side of more rather than less oversight. Conclusion It is evident that in the United States, as may be for the rest of the world, the way politics, power, money, and law, work in the higher education system in general are not very unclear. Policies or laws that are pertinent to higher education would not be promoted if there are no interest groups who would lobby for the promotion of education. If lobbying is present, however, the tendency is that financial support would be extended to legislators or those people in power to initiate the creation of the said policies. There is a very high probability in this scenario that people in power use their position to gain more to their advantage instead of actually giving what is due to higher education. Higher education in this way is caught in the middle, where all parties are trying as much as possible to get the most profit. With very little it can do, higher education is forced then to go with the flow of it all. Its development would therefore depend on these four major factors and their interplay. References Burd, S. (2004). Selling Out Higher-Education Policy?. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved from on June 20, 2007. Campaigne, D.A., & Hossler, D. (1998). How do loans affect the educational decisions of students? Access, aspirations, college choice, and persistence. New York: Teachers College Press. (ED 430 434) Elmore, R.F. (2006). The Politics of Education Reform. Issues in Science and Technology, Fall, 2006. Retrieved from < http://www.issues.org/issues/14.1/elmore.htm> on June 21, 2007. Formula for Reform. The Role of the Comprehensive University in Science and Engineering Education (1989). The American Association of State Colleges and Universities and the National Science Foundation. Goodnough, A. (2002). Teachers Dig Deeper to Fill Gap in Supplies. New York Times, Retrieved from June 20, 2007. Husic, D. W. (2003). Politics and Higher Education. Retrieved from June 21, 2007. Immerwahr, J., Johnson, J., Gasbarra P., Ott, A., and J. Rochkind. (2007). How Parents and the Public Look at Higher Education Today. USA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education p. 1-26 Lehming, Rolf, F. (1997) “Do Academic Research Costs Drive Up Undergraduate Tuition?”, National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. Nora, A., & F. Horvath. (1989, May). Financial assistance. Education and Urban Society, 21(3), 299-311. Prisco, A, Hurley, A., Carton, T., and R. Richardson. (2002). Federal Policies and Higher Education in the United States. NY: The Alliance for International Higher Education Policy Studies. pp. 1- 29. Ron Grossman (1996). “Research Grants Actually Add to Tuition Cost, Study Claims;” Chicago Tribune, January 1996. Troy, G. (1997). Money and Politics: the oldest connection. Wilson Quarterly, Summer 1997. Retrieved from on June 20, 2007. US Department of Education. (2006). The Federal Role in Education. Retrieved from on June 21, 2007. Wlodkowski, R. J., Mauldin, J. E., and S.W. Gahn. (2001) Learning in the Fast Lane: Adult Learners’ Persistence and Success in Accelerated College Programs, the Lumina Foundation for Education. Retrieved from on June 20, 2007. Read More