Just four years after the No Child Left Behind policy went into effect, the federal government has unveiled a new education program that will “rate the academic rigor of the nation’s 18,000 high schools,” according to a recent New York Times article. This multibillion dollar initiative will offer grants ranging from $750 to $1,300 to low-income students who have completed a “rigorous” high school course of study. It will be left up to the Secretary of Education to determine how to define “rigorous.”

In any case, this new program has sparked controversy and debate among students. Kiat Chuan Tan, a freshman from Singapore, compared the new program to others around the world.

“Federal money for education is always good,” he said. “In Europe, education is basically free, so people have a chance to get higher education without worrying about family background.”

He also described the Singaporean merit-based system of education, in which high-achieving students get significant help to pay for college.

Senior Crissy Iglesias, a private high school graduate, had a different take.

“I think the Bush philosophy on education is misguided,” she said. “It consistently takes money away from the schools and students that really need it.”

She added that, if the program were to be approved, it would be unfair to private school students, who would be ineligible to compete for the grants.

Freshman Allison Dedrick agreed.

“I think the program will backfire,” she said. “The people who end up in the lowest achieving schools are in most need of federal aid, as a general rule. It unfairly punishes the students who cannot attend more highly achieving public and private schools.”

As a public high school graduate, Dedrick added that it would also be difficult to accurately get a sense of any real high school experience.

“Classes can be rigorous but not have officially rigorous titles, and some classes that are Advanced Placement might be really terrible,” she said.

While the “rigorous” standards have yet to be defined, some combinations of AP and International Baccalaureate courses have been proposed as a possible definition.

Sophomore Nellie Olsen had her own take on the issue. While she admitted that “financially supporting students from low-income families is frequently a positive thing and always sounds good,” she had her own concerns.

“Frequently government regulation doesn’t have a box for “other,” which results in headache for people who choose non-traditional methods of completing high school,” she said. “I was home schooled for most of high school, an experience that I value highly, and think I was well prepared for Stanford. I think it would be a disservice to the country if home schoolers, because they couldn’t fit in the boxes designed for another system, were penalized in some way.”

Olsen also said that her best teachers were those more concerned with students than tests and more enthusiastic about their subjects than rankings. With high schools hurrying to have their courses recognized as “rigorous,” Olsen predicted that education in schools might actually suffer.

Despite this speculation and predictions about the consequences of this new federal aid program, students will not have to wait long to learn the outcome. The measure is expected to pass in the House next month and will affect the financial aid system immediately.