Editorial: Edwards's education policy

It is the rare and welcome occasion that a politician will take a stand for more accessible education and actually back up the words with substantive, realistic proposals. Last week, John Edwards did just that.

The possible Democratic presidential contender in 2004 and soon-to-be senior U.S. senator from North Carolina, Edwards laid out several specific policy measures. When he formally introduces them as legislation, these measures should form the baseline for efforts to make college more affordable. Recognizing that many Americans need more financial assistance than is currently available-or, at least, greater knowledge and access to what is already there--Edwards proposes a free first year of public college tuition, incentives for certain fields of study, restructuring federal loans and several other ideas that are a welcome change to a debate that often lacks new ideas.

The most welcome change Edwards proposed is streamlining the federal student-loan program. By eliminating a $2 billion annual subsidy to the banking industry, the government will save money without students seeing much of a difference. One only wishes that Edwards would go a step further and eliminate or consolidate some of the difficult financial forms that the federal program now requires. The proposal to offer free tuition to students who are interested in teaching and homeland security careers would likely improve the pool of candidates for jobs in those fields.

Edwards's idea of financing the first year of tuition for public colleges would also, in theory, improve accessibility by removing the "sticker shock" of a college education. As it stands, however, the proposal could simply be a tease to those who need financial aid, leaving them high and dry after their first year. A more sensible adjustment of the proposal would give a more modest tuition break for four years.

Many opponents of Edwards's plan will point to its price tag as an excuse not to implement its various proposals. However, in some ways the plan pays for itself--by, for example, streamlining the student-loan program--and the balance really would not be very expensive considering the benefits of higher education and how much other federal programs cost. The knee-jerk reaction of some politicians to oppose any government spending ignores the existence of real problems that real Americans face. Solutions to these problems often require a commitment of resources, even if those resources must come from other areas of the budget or increased revenue streams. Of course, when he formally submits his plan for Congressional approval, Edwards should be sure to specify exactly how the people will pay for it.

Edwards, himself the first person in his family to attend college, makes an ideal spokesperson for greater access to higher education. Whether that ability translates into future political success is too early to say, but he has certainly begun to articulate a vision.