Bush to cut funds for distance education

The Chronicle (Sept. 28, p. A47) reports that the Dept. of Education is cutting back on grants for distance education projects "because President Bush has proposed eliminating new financing for the program (starting) in the 2002 fiscal year."

The "Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships" program was started in the Clinton administration with $10 million in 1999. It got $23 million in 2000, and an already-budgeted $30 million this year. The proposal for next year is $0.

Too bad.

 

What did this LAAP program do with all that money? Perhaps the Bush administration decided that this was a "LAAP dance" that was taking several million dollars out of the collective taxpayer's pockets for no good reason. The ever increasing popularity of DL does not appear to need any help from Uncle Sam.

Gary

 

I am not an American & it is none of my business, but with all due respect I see these education budget cuts as a negative thing.

The basis for America’s success over the last 50 years or so has been its advanced tertiary (uni/college) education system.

You can’t start cutting back now - you simple can’t afford to lose that edge.

CFr

 

Oh really? Care to qualify that statement or back it up with any real data? Who doesn't receive a substantial cost savings - the schools or the students?

I can tell you most assuredly that in my case you are dead wrong. I'm saving a great deal of money (not to mention other benefits) by using distance learning rather than traditional schools. It costs a hell of a lot for most adults with families to relocate in order to physically attend school. Perhaps you haven't considered all of the factors that affect the total cost of education.

The real issue is accessibility, and I don't think that anyone can argue that distance learning is not more accessible for many, and probably most, people. Increased availability of DL can only lead to more people having the option to further their education.

I really don't know anything about the "Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships" program, so I can't say if it is good or bad. Do you know anything about this program? If not then how can you vehemently disagree with any opinion about it?

Sorry if I'm off base here, I just get the impression that a specific issue is being argued without any specific knowledge by either side. Cynicism is fine, but it can't be the sole basis for an opinion; at some point there has to be some real, relevant and specific knowledge involved.

Or maybe I should just sit back and let people speculate.

 

Home: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/FIPSE/LAAP/

Overview: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/FIPSE/LAAP/overview.html

Funded projects: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/FIPSE/LAAP/funding.html

The original legislation: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/FIPSE/LAAP/FY2000/legislat.html

Note: there is no mention of a funding cut on the web site at the moment.

I guess the question is, were the millions spent for the alliances worth it? Interestingly, using Dr. Bear's budget figures, the number of projects funded is roughly inversely proportional to their budget: 29 in 1999 ($10MM), 11 in 2000 ($23MM), and 6 in 2001 ($30MM). Of course, 2001 isn't over, but with the higher budget, you expect at the dawn of October that the funded projects would at least equal that of 2000...unless there was a touch of bureaucracy entering the picture...nah. Maybe they shot themselves in the foot.

The size of the individual grants didn't grow between 2000 and 2001...about $700K to $1.5MM. There wasn't any grant-size information in the project descriptions for 1999. (They're probably somewhere.)

 

The individual grants of 1999 had to have been smaller (avg. $370K) than the 2000 and 2001 grants but there was no information about long-term commitments for that year. Based on the practice of 2000 and 2001, the grants had 3-year commitments.

In 2000, they granted about $4MM and commited a total of $12.5MM for 3 years. In 2001, they commited 6.8MM for 3 years. So, I have to assume that the budget increases were spent to pay out the commitments from the previous year(s).

So it seems that there couldn't have been sustained growth in the program without much larger budget increases (or else full funding from the start).

This reminds me of the "100000 new police" program. The Clinton administration only (federally) funded the first year of the program; it was up to the states to fund it long-term.

 

Gary,

You raise several valid points. When I state "no substantial cost savings" I'm referring specifically to tuition costs. The DL tuition for schools such as RPI, RIT, NYU, Oklahoma State, Oregon Graduate Institute, UMUC and countless others have tuition costs that are about the same as (or equivalent to) campus-based tuition rates. Clearly, the overall "opportunity cost", which includes travel time/costs, inconvenience time, possible re-location costs, etc. will likely deliver an effective cost for DL that's less than a campus-based experience.

Agree 100%. My contention with TJ was that I got the impression from him that cutting this program would somehow thwart people’s efforts in receiving a college education through non-traditional means. He offered no evidence in how this program helps DL students or the DL community in general which illustrates my point – we can’t just continue to indiscriminately fund programs just because they may “sound” good or noble. We need public debate on these matters and we need accountability.

I’m not necessarily against LAAP, I really don’t know what there’re all about either. But I intend to find out. If it’s a valid and worthwhile effort, I’d be happy to support it. My general sense is, however, that the private sector, the for-profits, and the non-profits can sort it out on their own without the assistance (and subsequent demands) from the Federal gov’t.

I couldn’t agree more, Gary. Let’s find out about the program, understand its goals and objectives. If it’s a worthwhile cause, then we should get involved – perhaps by contacting government representatives to express support. Maybe, this could be an initiative for this board. In the mean time, our representative government made a decision to eliminate this program - likely driven by the desire for fiscal discipline and perhaps even striving for some level of accountability. We give our Congress the power to make these decisions, and at times they may get it wrong. Better to stop it now while it’s small (where people can make an assessment on it’s viability and develop/propose arguments for re-activating it) than to let it grow into a much larger beauracy that could drain funds away from more meaningful and necessary programs.

Bob