University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

GEAR UP and TRIO: Redirecting the fight to preserve access and opportunity in the Higher Education Act

(USC Thesis Other)

GEAR UP and TRIO: Redirecting the fight to preserve access and opportunity in the Higher Education Act

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content GEAR UP AND TRIO:
REDIRECTING THE FIGHT TO PRESERVE ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY IN
THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT
by
Kathleen A. Mahar
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2005
Copyright 2005 Kathleen A. Mahar
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UM I Number: 3180455
Copyright 2005 by
Mahar, Kathleen A.
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3180455
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ii
I would like to thank my amazing family for their unending support and
encouragement. Thank you to my husband, Bob, for his patience, love, confidence
and editing skills. Thank you to the incredible teachers at USC, especially Dr.
Hocevar and Dr. Cohn, who through their guidance, intelligence and advocacy
embody the philosophies of the Educational Leadership Program. Thank you to the
Redding Cohort, who truly made this adventure fun. And, thank you to my travel
and study buddy, Dr. Eden Dahlstrom; my colleague and my friend along this
incredible journey.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements............................................................................................... ii
List of Tables.......................................................................................................... v
Abstract................................................................................................................. vi
CHAPTER 1 Problem Description ....................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2 Why Access? Why Now? Why Gear Up and Trio? 14
CHAPTER 3 The History of Gear Up and Trio .................................................... 40
CHAPTER 4 Political Context ...... .................... 67
CHAPTER 5 Summary, Discussions And Recommendations ............................. 93
REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
iv
Table 1: Total Federal Appropriations ........................................................19
Table 2: TRIO Programs at a Glance..................................................... 19-20
Table 3: GEAR UP Programs at a Glance ....................................................20
Table 4: Critical Components of Access Programs............................... 32-33
Table 5: COE and NCCEP SWOT Analysis......................................... 45-46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
ABSTRACT
The following case study documents the historically tenuous working
relationship between two Higher Education Act (HEA) Title IV “access” programs,
GEAR UP and TRIO, with recommendations for how to reconcile the conflict.
TRIO and GEAR UP are educational access programs that work to increase post
secondary educational options for low-income students. They are both well-
respected programs administered through the United States Department of
Education. However, despite the fact that TRIO and GEAR UP have very similar
origins, goals and philosophies, tensions between the two programs have always
run high.
Particularly at odds are the two lobbying/support groups that support TRIO
and GEAR UP, which are the Council for Opportunity in Education (COE) and the
National Council for Community and Education Partnerships (NCCEP),
respectively. The conflict between these two groups can be traced back to the
inception of the GEAR UP program in 1998. Unfortunately, during the last 6
years, the conflict between the groups has steadily taken center stage,
overshadowing the tremendous work that TRIO and GEAR UP are doing to
support educationally disadvantaged students as they seek access to a
postsecondary education.
Unfortunately, this puts both GEAR UP and TRIO at risk, especially as the
programs politically position themselves for the next Reauthorization of the Higher
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi
Education Act. This is especially crucial for the upcoming Reauthorization,
because educational experts already predict that access and opportunity, the
foundations of the HEA in decades past, are being threatened by changing federal
policy trends, conflicting national priorities and budget shortfalls.
As an ad vocate of both GEAR UP and TRIO, this dissertation was designed
to assist both NCCEP and COE in solving this educational problem. Using an
action research methodology and the exploration of six themes, this case study
reveals the causes that have led to the discourse between the GEAR UP and TRIO
programs.
It also includes an action plan outlining ways in which the GEAR UP and TRIO
programs can work together to serve educationally disadvantaged students while
solidifying their roles as advocates for access and opportunity, the philosophies on
which both programs are based.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
Chapter 1: Problem Description
“The Higher Education Act o f1965 means that a high school senior
anywhere in this great land o f ours can apply to any college or any university in any
of the fifty states and not be turned away because his family is poor. ’ ’
-President Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965
On January 17,2005, a joint press release was issued from the National
Council for Community Education Partnerships (NCCEP) and the Council for
Opportunity in Education (COE). The press release, entitled, GEAR UP and TRIO
Work Together to Meet President Bush’ s Challenge, praised the work of two
Higher Education Act (HEA) Title IV “access” programs, GEAR UP and TRIO and
petitioned the President for greater resources for both programs. To the average
reader, this press release did not seem remarkable in any way.
However, to the educational community, particularly practitioners and policy
makers that work with low-income students and champion the goal of increasing
access to higher education for more students, this press release is truly revolutionary.
It is the result of hard work, negotiations, compromise and years of effort from
program staff and supporters of the GEAR UP and TRIO Programs.
It is also a highlight in an increasingly public battle between NCCEP and
COE, the lobbying groups that support GEAR UP and TRIO, respectively, that
nearly overshadowed the good work of both programs and had the potential to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
negatively influence the very foundation upon which the TRIO and GEAR UP
programs have been built.
TRIO and GEAR UP are Higher Education Act (HEA) Title IV “access
programs” that work to increase educational options for low-income students. They
are both well-respected programs administered through the United States Department
of Education. Both programs have proven their ability to effectively serve
educationally disadvantaged students. However, despite the fact that TRIO and
GEAR UP have very similar origins, goals and philosophies, tensions between the
two programs have always run high.
Particularly at odds are the two lobbying/support groups that support TRIO
and GEAR UP, which are the Council for Opportunity in Education (COE) and the
National Council for Community and Education Partnerships (NCCEP),
respectively. The conflict between these two groups can be traced back to the
inception of the GEAR UP program in 1998. Unfortunately, during the last 6 years,
the conflict between the groups has steadily taken center stage, overshadowing the
tremendous work that TRIO and GEAR UP are doing to support educationally
disadvantaged students as they seek access to a postsecondary education.
The impact and significance of the conflict is compounded by the pending
Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The Reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act, which was scheduled to take place during the 108 Congress, was
never finalized. Consequently, the Higher Education Act, which expired in the fall of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
2004, was given a one-year extension. The 109th Congress is now responsible for its
completion.
Political insiders do not believe that one year will be enough time for the
resolution of this complex piece of legislation which will dictate the future of higher
education for the next decade. Limited federal funds, political focus on K-12,
homeland security and the war in Iraq, are influencing all conversations dealing with
appropriations for Higher Education. More importantly, the changing federal view
about the role of access for low-income, non-traditional students has stimulated
crucial philosophical debates that need to be resolved before any agreements can be
reached.
To negotiate these tense political waters, educational policy advocates have
been looking to GEAR UP and TRIO to be the champions of access for low-income
students. Unfortunately, GEAR UP and TRIO have allowed themselves to be
sidetracked by the on-going conflict with each other, which has distracted them from
the real issues and diverted attention from where it is most needed. Historically,
these two programs have been so busy focusing on each other that they have not
effectively asserted themselves for the role of access in the HEA. Whereas they have
been called upon as leaders from colleagues in the field, their voices have been
effectively silent.
For example, when I asked a NCCEP professional what they were going to
do about the threat to Pell Grants, the number one source of aid for low-income
students, the reply was, “We decided that in this political climate, that is not a hill we
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
are willing to die on.” COE’s main concern has been to protect Prior Experience
points, a controversial policy that allows experienced TRIO programs to have
advantage over institutions seeking new grants.
As articulated by an access professional that I interviewed for this study,
“There are tremendous threats to access right now. We need long-term commitments
to our programs. We are looking for champions. If GEAR UP and TRIO could get it
together, emphasize that they are different programs, encourage money for both, they
could be the strong advocates that we are waiting for, with national and community
impact. It is crazy that they have allowed themselves to be pitted against each other. T
don’t know if any one at the top planned this, but they must certainly be happy about
it; divide and conquer has always been an effective strategy” (Confidential personal
communications, 12/21/04).
In other words, the press release, and the collaboration that it represents, has
a much greater significance than what one might glean at a first glance. This
collaboration has come at a crucial time in the history of federal higher education
policy and in the history of the GEAR UP and TRIO programs and heralds a small
but significant beginning of an equally long journey to come.
Consequently, it is a welcome site for many that have been waiting for COE
and NCCEP to reconcile their differences so that they may focus their efforts on
more crucial matters; specifically, the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act
and more importantly the philosophy of access on which the original Law was based.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
Higher Education Act of 1965
The Higher Education Act (HEA) was originally signed into law in 1965 to
ensure that postsecondary education options were available to all students in the
United States. The original Act was the Johnson Administration’s attempt to remedy
past discriminatory practices that had prevented low income students and students of
color from entering college and achieving their educational dreams. Seen as the
great equalizer, the opportunity to earn a college education was to be available to all
people regardless of race, gender or economic stature.
To achieve these noble goals, the Higher Education Act allocated funds for
programming that would: increase financial aid options; help students complete high
school and enter post secondary education; increase funding to institutions serving
non-traditional students; and, improve college teaching programs for students
seeking to be K-12 teachers.
Four decades after its inception, the HEA continues to define the role of the
federal government in postsecondary education. In 2001, HEA student aid programs
constituted 64% of all federal, state and institutional aid awards to increase access
and support for non-traditional students (The College Board, Trends in Student Aid,
2001). Title IV of the HEA provides authorization for student assistance and access
programs and is the home for both TRIO and GEAR UP.
Unfortunately, nearly 40 years after the inception of the HEA, the conditions
for access to post secondary education in the United States continue to be a crucial
issue. Despite tremendous efforts to ensure greater access to post secondary
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
education, the largest predictor of who will attend and succeed in higher education is
still economic status and the educational attainment level of the previous generation
(Cabrera, 2001).
In fact, the highest achieving low-income students go to college at the same
rate as the lowest achieving high-income students (Access Denied, 2001). This has
grave consequence for the economic and social well being of future generations.
Despite these facts, experts already predict that access and affordability, the
themes on which the HEA was originally created, are being threatened by the
national fervor and political trend toward accountability. Preliminary bills released
by the House have indicated that this reauthorization will be significantly different
from those of decades past.
In this climate, it is imperative that GEAR UP and TRIO, and the groups that
support them, work together to ensure that the good work of both of these programs
will not be jeopardized. By allowing their conflict to divert attention from the quality
work being executed at the ground level, NCCEP and COE put both access programs
at risk, especially as the programs politically position themselves for their place in
the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA).
Consequently, despite a federal climate that continues to worsen in terms of
conflicting priorities and limited budgets, many educational experts are breathing a
sigh of relief that the HEA has been extended and that the discussion will resume
throughout the 109th Congress.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
The one-year extension will allow time for GEAR UP and TRIO, and
consequently NCCEP and COE, to continue to work towards the resolution of their
own issues so they can better assume their roles as advocates in the federal arena. To
secure their own futures, it is essential that the two programs continue to work
together to create a unified response for Congress that will not only serve to advocate
for their own programs but for the increasingly vulnerable philosophy of access in
the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
Purpose of the Research
The following dissertation will be a case study that documents the tenuous
working relationship between the nation’s two largest “access” programs, GEAR UP
and TRIO, with recommendations for continued reconciliation efforts. This study
will be done within the framework of Action Research, because it explores an
educational problem that needs to be solved.
The purpose for the study is that divisive relations between GEAR UP and
TRIO have historically diverted attention from the quality work being executed at
the ground level by both programs. This puts both access programs at risk, especially
as the programs politically position themselves for their place in the Reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act (HEA), which technically expired in the fall of 2004 but
has been given a one-year extension.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
Context and Focus of Study
The context of the study will be the Reauthorization of the Higher Education
Act. The significance of this context will be explained through a complex literature
review that highlights the changing federal political climate that has historically
promoted access in education but that is moving toward accountability, largely
because of competing agendas and priorities at the federal level. The literature
review will also show that the move away from traditional values is coming at a time
in which access to post-secondary education is increasingly important and yet
increasingly undervalued.
The focus of the study will be on the two access programs, GEAR UR and
TRIO, and their support agencies, NCCEP and COE, respectively, that have the
respect, knowledge and expertise necessary to successfully influence higher
education policy but whom have been distracted by an on-going feud with each
other.
Participants
The participants will be individuals directly involved with HEA access
programs, either at the program level or at the federal lobbying/ advocate level, that
have worked extensively with the GEAR UP and TRIO Programs and/or NCCEP
and COE. Perspectives of lobbying agencies and access professionals have also been
included. The opinions of the participants, backed by extensive literature reviews
highlighting the unique political climate of our times, will document the GEAR UP
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
and TRIO conflict and serve as an impetus for continued resolution of the inter
agency issues so that COE and NCCEP can make a united case to the 109th
Congress.
Synopsis of the Methodology
The approach to research in this study follows a qualitative, action research
framework. The framework for the design of the methodology has been taken from
the work of Stringer (1999) who describes action research as “a conceptual and
participatory process that enables people to: a.) Investigate systematically their
problems and issues, b.) Formulate powerful and sophisticated accounts of their
situations and c.) Devise plans to deal with the problems at hand” (p. 17).
Specifically, this research study will follow a case study design. Case study
research consists of an in-depth study of phenomenon in its natural context explored
through the perspective of the participants involved in the phenomenon (Gall & Gall,
1996). Three strategies of data collection will be used to carry out this study:
document analysis, informal interviews and observations.
By actively seeking input from insiders and practitioners and by reviewing the
documents and events that offer insight into the phenomenon (conflict) in its natural
context, this research study mirrors the definition of a case study (Stinger, 1999).
In addition, case study research involves the exploration of issues or themes. The
following themes serve as the basic set of assumptions upon which this study is
based.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
1. The Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is taking place in an
increasingly complex political and economic climate.
2. The focus of the next HEA has moved away from the traditional theme of
Access for the low-income student and more toward programmatic
accountability.
3. GEAR UP and TRIO provide effective interventions for serving low-income
students and effectively actualize the goals set forth in Title IV of the Higher
Education Act.
4. The tumultuous relationship between GEAR UP and TRIO has distracted
their focus from the broader issues.
5. The conflict must be resolved so that GEAR UP and TRIO can focus their
efforts on serving educational disadvantaged schools and students, especially
in light of the upcoming Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
6. A common platform that would unite the two programs with a common
lobbying strategy, that is supportive of GEAR UP and TRIO and clearly
articulates the similarities and differences of each entity, would ultimately
help both programs and is needed to support the principles of access on
which each program is based.
The focus of this study and its goal of creating an action plan for conflict
resolution and policy advocacy have dictated the decision to implement a qualitative
case study within the framework of action research. Research indicates that these
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
choices are appropriate and viable for carrying out the objectives of this dissertation
(Stringer, 1999; Patton, 2002; Creswell, 2003).
The Structure of the Report
The structure of this dissertation will be a case study which documents the
relationship of GEAR UP and TRIO and the lobbying agencies that support them,
NCCEP and COE, respectively, from the inception of GEAR UP in 1998 until now.
This will be done through a comprehensive document analysis that is supported by
insights from educational practitioners in the field. The dissertation will also present
the urgency of continued reconciliation by detailing the increasingly complex
political climate that is defining federal higher education policy at this juncture. An
action plan will also be presented that calls for increased collaboration and continued
political strategies that use the lobbying strengths of both programs.
To achieve these goals, the report will be structured in the following manner.
Chapter 1 will include an introduction to the study and a brief overview of die
Higher Education Act. The purpose, context, methodology and participants of the
study will also be introduced.
Chapter 2 will explore the status of access to post secondary education in the
United States for low income, non-traditional students. It will include the argument
that increased access to post secondary education is a national concern, highlighting
societal and economic consequences if our current college going rates are not
improved for all segments of our population. A review of literature will also
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
highlight strategies and frameworks that have effectively increased access to post
secondary education for low-income students. The educational framework that
serves as the foundation for both the GEAR UP and TRIO programs will also be
presented.
Chapter 3 will thoroughly document the history of the GEAR UP and TRIO
programs, with detailed accounts of the tumultuous rapport that has plagued the two
entities. The relationship of their support organizations, the Council for Opportunity
in Education and the National Council on Community Educational Partnerships, will
also be explained.
Chapter 4 will present the political climate in which debate over the
Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is taking place. The changing dynamics
of federal higher education policy will be presented to accentuate the urgency that
GEAR UP and TRIO continue to solidify their voices and redirect their energies
away from each other and toward the broader goals of access and opportunity.
Chapter 5 revisits the themes upon which the study was designed in terms of
the literature review, opinions from practitioners in the field and research notes from
observations. All data sources will be combined to shape the recommendations for
continued collaboration and an increased voice for access. The case will be
presented with comprehensive recommendations for the leaders of the GEAR UP
and TRIO programs and the leaders of NCCEP and COE. Future action plans and
implications for further research will also be presented.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
All chapters have been designed to tell the story of GEAR UP and TRIO as
they strive to redirect their energies and focus away from each other and towards the
preservation of access and opportunity in the Reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act.
GEAR UP and TRIO are both excellent programs with established
backgrounds and a proven record for effectively serving low-income students and
influencing school reform. I am confident that the case that will be presented,
through a detailed description of the challenging political times, the social and
economic urgency of improved access, and recommendations from practitioners in
the field will reinforce the efforts of both programs as they continue to reconcile with
each other for the good of a higher cause.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
Chapter 2: Why Access? Why Now?
Why GEAR UP and TRIO?
The Higher Education Act was formed on the principles of increased access
to post secondary education for all segments of society. The economic and societal
gains attributed to increased post secondary graduation rates justifies the intrusion of
the federal government into the affairs of higher education, a realm normally left to
the states. The Higher Education Act is now synonymous with the role of the federal
government in Education; however, the HEA is not the first foray of the federal
government into the promotion of access and higher education.
The Truman Commission of 1947 represents the first deliberate actions by
the federal government to proclaim that access to post secondary education has
essential societal value. The Morril Act of 1892, which created land-grant
universities, did serve to expand access, but it was not the ultimate goal of the
legislation and the federal government did little to oversee how that money was
spent. The Truman Commission Report of 1947, however, deliberately put forth
legislation with the goal of making higher education accessible to more people.
It is the responsibility of the community, at the local, state, and national
levels, to guarantee that financial barriers do not prevent any able and
otherwise qualified young person from receiving the opportunity for higher
education. There must be developed in this country the widespread
realization that money expended for education is the wisest and soundest of
investments in the national interest. The democratic community cannot
tolerate a society based upon education for the well to do alone (President’s
Commission on Higher Education, 1947, volume 2, p.23).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
To make this goal a reality, Truman suggested that the first two years of
college be free to all citizens, and that the fees in subsequent years be reduced to the
smallest amount possible. Unfortunately, because the federal government did not
have the authority to control any colleges or universities, it had no real authority to
implement the recommendations of the Commission (Heller, 2001). As a result, the
impact of the Truman Commission was an increase of awareness of post secondary
education and the expansion of community colleges nationwide. However, no real
revolutionary changes were actualized.
It was not until almost 20 years later, in 1965, that the United States was able
to pass the Higher Education Act, the first federal legislation that had real influence
over higher education policy (Callan in Heller, 2001). This law was created as a
means to promote access to post secondary education with the understanding that
access would serve a wider range of public purposes including:
• The avoidance of large scale unemployment
• The desire for scientific and technological superiority in the Cold War
• The response to moral imperatives in the civil rights movement
• The encouragement of National, State and Regional Economic growth
• The promotion of opportunity and social mobility (Callan, 2001).
Best described by Lyndon Johnson, the author of the law, the Higher
Education Act was created so that we can:
look into the faces of your students and your children and your grandchildren
and tell them that a promise has been made to them. Tell them that the
leadership of your country believed it is the obligation of your nation to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
provide and permit and assist every child bom in their borders to receive all
the education they can take (Higher Education Act, Johnson, 1965).
Unlike the Truman Commission, the Higher Education Act of 1965 included
the authority for the federal government to implement the programming that
supported its intentions. For example, the HEA allowed the federal government to
create policy that provided student aid, student support service programs, and grant
assistance. Consequently, the HEA truly redefined the role that the Federal
Government played in higher education (Breneman in Heller, 2001). The law also
exemplified the societal values of accessibility previously put forth in the Truman
Commission.
Lyndon Johnson originally signed the Higher Education Act into law in 1965.
Title IV of the Higher Education Act outlines the provisions of Student Assistance
Programs, which were designed to increase access and equity in education.
Specifically, this provision called for the creation of programs that would enable
more people to pursue and succeed in post-secondary education. Title IV, home for
GEAR UP and TRIO, specifically authorizes student assistance and access programs
that support students from low socio economic backgrounds, students with
disabilities, first-generation college students, and students of color.
The term TRIO actually refers to several different programs that serve those
who are first generational college students and meet a low-income criteria
established by the United States Department of Education. All TRIO programs are
similar in that they provide tutoring support, summer enrichment, financial aid
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
awareness, and college tours for the students that participate in the program. Upward
Bound, which serves students in grades 9-12, began in 1964 and was the first of
these programs. The Talent Search Program, which serves students in grades 6 - 12,
was added in 1965, and the Student Support Service (SSS) Program, serving college
students, was added shortly thereafter. These three programs were termed the TRIO
programs and to this day have become synonymous with the Higher Education Act
Title IV provision for student assistance programs.
Affectionately know as “Access” programs or “Pre-collegiate Outreach”
programs by professionals working in the field, the TRIO programs now include not
three, but eight different programs designed to encourage students from diverse,
nontraditional backgrounds to pursue higher education. TRIO programs are under
the umbrella of the Council of Opportunity in Education (COE), a non-profit
\ organization that lobbies on behalf of the TRIO programs and provides staff
development and program assistance to TRIO programs that pay the membership
fees.
The GEAR UP program was not created until 1997, and was officially
established during the last Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 1998.
President Clinton, as part of his K-12 educational reform movement, created the
GEAR UP program with the intention of broadening the current access programs to
include greater impacts on systematic reform.
GEAR UP Partnership grants serve students in grades 6-12. Schools with
over 50% Free and Reduced Lunch rates are eligible for the GEAR UP Program;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
once a grant is received, all students in the participating cohort or school qualify for
services. GEAR UP also has State Grants that are awarded directly to the states for
more systemic endeavors such as training, teacher development, articulation, parent
education and statewide incentive programs.
GEAR UP stands for Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs, and services are designed accordingly. Several of the
services offered through GEAR UP, (tutoring, mentoring, college and financial aid
awareness), are similar to those offered through the TRIO program. In addition,
GEAR UP also offers funds for teacher training, curriculum development and
articulation, support for data driven decision-making systems, and strategies for the
development of private/public relationships at all levels.
Another significant difference is that GEAR UP is not served by COE, but
instead is a program of the National Council for Community Educational
Partnerships (NCCEP). NCCEP serves in a similar capacity as COE does for TRIO,
providing program assistance, staff development and federal lobbying support.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
GEAR UP and TRIO at a Glance
Table 1: TOTAL FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS
Funding
Year
TRIO GEAR UP
FY 2002 $802.5 million $285.0 million
FY 2003 827.1 million 293.1 million
FY 2004 832.6 million 298.2 million
FY 2005 836 million 305 million
(US Department o f Education, 2002); (Fields, 2001)
Table 2: TRIO Programs (2002-2003)
PROGRAM
SERVICES OFFERED STUDENTS
SERVED
FEDERAL
APPROPRIA TIONS
PER PROGRAM
(in millions)
Upward
Bound
(Also includes
UB Math &
Science and
UB Veterans
Programs)
Preps high school
students for higher
education through
instruction, counseling,
financial aid education,
and summer programs
on college campuses.
770 grants
56,841
participants
$264.2
Talent Search Works with 6-12th
grade students where
neither parent has
graduated to help them
understand their college
options
475 grants
389,454
participants
143.5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2: Continued
2 0
Educational
Opportunity
Centers
Community centers
serving displaced or
underemployed workers
from low income
families
139 grants
217,836
participants
48
Student
Support
Services
Helps low-income and
disabled college
students achieve a
bachelor’s degree
through tutoring,
counseling and remedial
education
937 grants
198,551
participants
262.7
McNair
Program
Encourages low-income
and minority
undergraduates to
consider college
teaching and/or prepare
for doctoral study
156 grants
3,774
participants
38.4
(US Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, 2002);
(Fields, 2001)
Table 3: GEAR UP
PROGRAM SERVICES OFFERED STUDENTS SER VED
GEAR UP
Partnership and State
Grants
Tutoring, enrichment
activities, college tours,
remedial education, teacher
development, systematic
reform efforts,
corporate/community
partnerships, curriculum
development and
articulation
6 through 12 grade
students served in
“cohorts”
243 partnership grants
30 state grants
Approximately 1 million
students (2002)
(Fields, 2001)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
Why Access?
Though undoubtedly the biggest and most well known, TRIO and GEAR UP
are just two of the many “college preparation programs” that have been created and
implemented to increase post secondary access among under represented youth. In
fact,
Over the last generation, a myriad of experiments have attempted to bolster
access to college. Educational institutions, state and federal governments and
local communities have committed significant resources to the development
of a wide array of outreach activities designed to identify and assist
underrepresented students in their pathways to college (Tierney, Corwin &
Colyar, p. 1,2004).
The efforts and resources dedicated to the cause of access over the last four
decades have produced note worthy results. According to the U.S. Department of
Education and Consumer Price Index: 1965-2000, overall rates for 18-24 year olds
increased from 26% in 1967 to 36% in 2000. College attendance among African
American students more than doubled from 13% to 30% during the same time
period. Among the Hispanic population, college attendance was 20% in 1975,
decreased in the 1980’s to approximately 17% and was 22% in 2000 (US
Department of Education: Office of Postsecondary Programs). Post-secondary
enrollment for students from low-income families also increased from 26% in 1972
to 38% in 2000 (Census Bureau, 2000).
Unfortunately, while the percentage of post secondary attendance for low
income students and students of color has increased through these efforts, the college
going rates for white, high income students have increased as well (Choy, 2002).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 2
Consequently, the achievement gap between the subgroups has remained relatively
unchanged over the last 40 years.
In other words, despite the efforts that have been put forth by Title IV
Student Assistance and Access Programs over the last 40 years, including GEAR UP
and TRIO, access to college for low income and minority youth continues to lag far
behind that of their non-minority, non low income counter parts. “Although the
efforts of these (college preparation) programs are well-intentioned, minority
students remain underrepresented on college campuses. Opportunity, access, and
attainment for minority students continue to fall below the levels afforded White and
Asian American students (American Council on Education, 2002 in Tierney, et.al,
2004, p.l).
Although it is important not to minimize the gains, there remain unacceptable
large gaps in postsecondary educational attainment among student populations
differing by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic stats. For example, in 2000, the
potential for a college degree by age 24 was estimated to be about 8% for those
in the lowest economic quartile, as compared with 52% for those in the highest
quartile (Mortenson 2001, in Calahan & Curtin p. 5).
Access Denied: Restoring the Nation’ s Commitment to Equal Educational
Opportunity, a comprehensive report by the Advisory Committee on Student
Financial Assistance, found that:
The participation of low-income youth in postsecondary education continues
to lag far behind that of their middle and upper-income peers. Large
differences persist in college entry rates, with gaps between low-income
families (below $25,000) and high-income families (above $75,000) as wide
as existed three decades ago. A recent study indicates that low-income
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
students, who graduate high school at least minimally qualified, as defined by
the US Department of Education, enroll in four-year institutions at half the
rate of the comparably qualified high-income peers. Equally troubling, only
6% of students with the lowest socio-economic states (SES) earn a bachelor’s
degree compared to 40% with the highest SES (Access Denied, 2001, p.4).
According to the report, financial restraints will prevent 48% of college-
qualified, low-income high school graduates from enrolling in a four-year college
and 22% of low-income students from attending any college at all. The report also
notes that the lowest achieving students from the highest income brackets enroll in
college at the same rate (77%) as the highest achieving low-income students (Access
Denied, 2001).
The US Department of Education corroborated those results, with the finding
that “the higher the family income of high school graduates, the more likely the
graduate is to enroll in college” (Ruppert, 2003, p3).
Unfortunately, low income students are at a another disadvantage because
studies have shown that low-income students are more likely to graduate high school
with less academic resources than their higher socio economic counterparts
(Adelman in Cabrera, 1999, Cabrera, 2001). This has significant implications for
success in post secondary education. In a study conducted by Adelman (1999)
which tracked the members of a 1980 High School Sophomore Cohort over a
decade, it was determined that “the quality and intensity of academic preparation
secured in high school was one of the most important determinants of completing a
college degree” (Cabrera, et al, 2001, p.2)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
Unfortunately, the same study also found that the
Lowest SES (Socio Economic Status) students are most likely to journey on
the path of medium academic resources and entrance to a 2-year institution.
The degree completion chances of those who journey on this path are only
3.3%. At the opposite end, is the case of Highest SES students who travel on
the path of high academic resources and entrance into a 4-year institution.
Eighty-one percent of Highest SES students traveling on this path graduate
with a bachelor’s degree” (Cabrera, et al, 2001, p.5)
Unfortunately, limited access to post-secondary education not only has
personal consequences but broader societal implications and dire economic
consequences as well.
A bachelor’s degree is no longer considered a potential stepping-stone to a
better life. It is fully acknowledged as the gatekeeper to a myriad of social
and individual benefits. A college graduate is far less likely to commit
criminal behaviors and more prone to participate in civic activities than are
less educated individuals. Each additional year of schooling past high school
seems to prolong life by .4 percent, or nearly 2 percentage points upon
graduation from college (Hossler, Braxton, and Coopersmith, 1989, in
Cabrera et al, 200 i , p. 1).
Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, reinforced the
consequences of denied educational access at the economic level. In an appearance
before the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Greenspan proclaimed,
“American workers need to be better trained and better educated if our country is
going to remain competitive in the years ahead” (2004).
Richard Riley, Former U.S. Secretary of Education, also spoke about the
changing economy and its influence on education.
The education paradigm of the agricultural and factory age is no longer
appropriate. That was a world where one-third of our young people were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
prepared for college, one-third got enough of an education to work in a
factory or on a farm, and one-third of the students got an education that
prepared them for nothing at all. Fortunately for that last one-third, menial
jobs were available for most uneducated people who wanted to work. Today,
however, we must aim to prepare all students so that they can successfully
undertake post-secondary work. We must do so because the vast majority of
future jobs will require education and technical skills beyond high school
(Pathways to College Network. Retrieved September 12,2004 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.nathwavstocollege.net/odfysharedasenda.Bdfl.
The report entitled Closing the Participation Gap, commissioned by the
Educational Commission of the states, found that “baby boomers are being replaced
by a generation that, is both smaller in number and no better educated. This has
chilling implications for the future productivity of the U.S. labor force among other
things” (Ruppert, 2003, p.3).
The study also found that “Unemployment rates for workers who have a high
school diploma are 50% higher than for holders of an associate’s degree and twice
that of those who have a bachelor’s degree. Individuals with a baccalaureate degree
with earn an average 40% more, the equivalent of $900,000- over a lifetime than
those, who-hold only a high school credential” (Ruppert, 2003? p.3).
However, “current gaps in college participation and attainment based on age,
race, ethnicity and income suggest a greater number of people soon may be at risk of
losing access to a college education” (ibid.)
Statistics show that African American and Hispanics students are
underrepresented in comparison to the total college age population (Choy, 2002).
US Census Data shows that among 18-24 year olds in 2000, 14% were African
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
American and 15% were Hispanic. However among college students in this group,
10% were African American and 10% were Hispanic (Choy, 2002, p.9)
Translated into economic figures, merely closing the participation gap
between Hispanics, the most rapidly growing adult population, and their white
counterparts, “could add another $45.5 billion dollars annually to U.S. coffers”
(Rupert, 2003, p. 3).
There are also international consequences. As declared in the study,
If .current .fiends persist and students in the United States continue to enroll in
college at the rate they do now, America is likely to slip further behind the
growing number of developed nations that have stepped up their efforts over
the last decade to increase educational attainment among their citizens. In
today’s highly competitive global market, human capital is the coin of the
realm (Ruppert, p. 1,2003).
In a full committee hearing to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee
on Education and the Workforce, July 13,2004, Ross Weiner, Policy Director of the
Education Trust declared,
Unless we change current trends, we will become a society that is even more
polarized by class distinctions. Consider this: 7% of young people from the
poorest one-quarter of American families earn a bachelors degree by age 26,
while 60% of young people from the top quartile of family income do so.
College degrees may be the hest route out of poverty, but they are a route
now for only 7 of every 100 youngsters bom to a low-income family
(http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/108th/fc/edttust071304/
weiner.htm, p.3).
However, the Truman Commission may have said it the best, “if college
opportunities are restricted to those in the higher income brackets, the way is open to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
the creation and perpetuation of a class society which has no place in the American
way of life” (President’s Commission on Higher Education, 1947, volume 2, p.23).
The good news is that studies have found that “although students whose
parents did not go to college are at a disadvantage with respect to college access and
persistence, if they do finish a bachelor's degree, their employment outcomes are
similar to those of their peers with college- educated parents” (Choy, 2002, p. 6). In
addition, it has been concluded that
Though the social and economic benefits of a college degree are manifold,
securing them is tied to a single stepping-stone: completing a college degree
(Adelman, ,1999 in Cabrera et al,2001, jp. 1).
Strategies for Increasing Post Secondary Access
Fortunately, much research has been done to determine significant factors
that influence access and enrollment in post-secondary education, specifically
amongst under-represented student populations.
For example, a 2001 report entitled Access and Persistence, Findings From
10 Years o f Longitudinal Research on Students, sponsored by the American Council
on Education, provides an excellent summary of the results of three national research
studies on college going characteristics. The three studies compiled for the report,
led by the Hepartment.of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES), included the National Education Longitudinal Study; the Beginning
Postsecondary Student Longitudinal Study; and the Baccalaureate and Beyond
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
Study. Findings of the studies, as documented in Access and Persistence (Choy,
2002) include the following five themes.
1.) Parents’ Educational Level and Family Income Level:
A young person’s chance of going to college increases based on the
educational level of the parents. This is true for even the most highly qualified
students. Parents’ educational level and income level also influenced the ability of
students to follow through on plans to attend college, “Family income and parents’
education influence students ’ ability to follow through with college plans within two
years of high school graduation” (Choy, 2002, p. 11).
2.) Enrollment in a Rigorous Curriculum:
“The rigor of students’ high school curriculum affects their likelihood of
going to college” (Choy, 2002, p. 14). This is particularly true for math courses.
Taking rigorous math courses in middle school and high school can mitigate the
effect of parents ’ educational level. A rigorous math curriculum directly
corresponds to enrollment in college, even for students whose parents did not go
beyond high school. “At-risk students that went beyond Algebra II were almost
twice as likely to go to college as students that stopped at Algebra II. Unfortunately,
a substantial portion of students whose parents did not go to college (1 out of 5)
attends middle or junior high schools that do not offer A lgebra” (Choy, 2002, p. 15).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
3.) Influence of Peers and Support Systems:
Peer pressure is also a factor in the decision to attend college. According to
the studies, low income and at-risk students will apply to college if their friends plan
on attending. College access programs, as well as parental and school support with
the application process, have proven to increase college-going rates. Students were
about four times as likely to attend college when most of their friends were planning
4o enroll (Choy, 2002). “Students who received help filling out college applications
or preparing for entrance exams were more likely to enroll than those who did not.
Finally students who participated in high school outreach programs almost doubled
their odds of enrolling at a four-year college. However, only 5% of at-risk students
participated in such programs” (Choy, 2002, p. 16).
4.) Financial Concerns:
Financial costs are a barrier to college going rates for low-income students.
Financial aid has proven to be an equalizer to some extent; however, access to
information about financial costs and options for aid is also dependent on parent
educational level and socio economic status (Choy, 2002). Low-income families
also overestimate the cost of higher education, which erroneous ly makes them feel
that higher education is even further out of their reach (Choy, 2002).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
5.) Steps to Enrollment:
Low-income students enroll in college at the same rate as others when they
take all of the necessary steps to enrollment during high school. These steps include
aspiring to attend college, taking rigorous curriculum and being academically
prepared, taking the necessary entrance exams, applying to college, accessing
financial aid mid enrolling (Choy, 2002). Aspiring to attend college was shown to be
the most significant; unfortunately, parents’ educational level was also a significant
factor influencing college aspirations (Choy, 2002).
Other educational researchers have reinforced the findings presented in the
Access and Persistence study. According to the research, the following factors have
been determined to influence a student’s chance of enrolling and completing a post
secondary education.
These factors include:
parental expectations; support and encouragement from family, high school
friends, and teachers; developing clear educational goal and occupational
aspirations by the 9th grade; high school experiences; high school academic
resources; access to information about college offerings; gathering
information about financial aid; preparation for entrance exams; the type of
first institution attended; enrollment patterns; the need for remediation;
curricular patterns, performance in college and family responsibilities
(Adelman, 1999; Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001; Horn & Chen, 1998; John et al,
2Q Q Q ; Velez, 1985; Velez & Javalgi, 1987 in Cabrera et al, 2QQ1, p. 1).
It is important to notice that attainment of the factors identified by the
researchers for improving post secondary education enrollments is not a reflection of
the skills or abilities of the student. The majority of the factors identified by the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
researchers as influencing access to post secondary education are beyond the control
of the individual and rest within the scope of the school and/or community.
The paper, “How do Pre-Collegiate Academic Programs Impact College-
Going among Underrepresented Students?” (Gullat & Jan, 2002) found that most
access programs are built to respond to an existing “deficit educational model”. An
investigation of access programs found that “most pre-collegiate outreach programs
are designed to counter the effects of negative school and/or lack of community
resources and influences that inhibit student learning and goal-setting” (Martinez &
Klopott, 2003, p.3).
It is not the fault of the student if their high school does not offer rigorous
curriculum or college counseling. The student is not to blame if the junior high does
not offer Algebra. The stakes are high regarding the economic and social impacts of
denied access to education. It is our responsibility to provide access to students that
have been denied opportunity through no fault of their own. Consequently, it is
prudent practice to apply interventions for low-income students so that we may
empower them to reach their educational and economic potential. The GEAR UP
and TRIO programs were founded on that philosophy.
Fortunately, research has shown us what is needed to improve post secondary
education rates for low income and first generation students. The following chart has
been taken from the research of Dr. Patricia McDonough at UCLA who translated
the research on college access into tangible action items and practical steps for
increasing access rates. The nine elements of the chart have been identified as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
essential factors that truly impact the college going rates for under represented
students (McDonough, McClafferty, Nunez, 2002). At the “Creating a College
Culture” Project at UCLA, these components are used to help schools and programs
measure the extent to which they provide a college going culture for all students. The
program components of GEAR UP and TRIO have been highlighted to show their
direct relationship to the educational research that shaped the nine proponents.
Table 4:
9 Critical Components to Improve Access to Post Secondary Education
College Talk
Clear, on-going talk with
students andfamilies
about what it takes to go
to college
GEAR UP: Beginning in
5th - 6th grade, counselors/
staff work with students &
families to raise awareness
about college options and
career opportunities.
TRIO. Talent Search
begins in the 6th Grade and
provides similar services
to eligible students and
their families. Upward
Bound provides extensive
college awareness options
for high school students in
their programs. Both GU
and TRIO provide college
enrichment activities,
college tours and career
exploration activities.
Clear Expectations
Explicit, clear-defined
goals
GEAR UP and TRIO
work with program
participants to help
students understand their
career and educational
options and help students
plan to achieve those
goals. TRIO students must
indicate a desire to attend
higher education to be a
part of a TRIO program.
Both programs also serve
to raise awareness of the
educational and career
opportunities available to
students through the
provisions of cultural
enrichment activities, field
trips, mentoring, etc.
Information and
Resources
Comprehensive, up to date
college info. & resources
for students and families
GEAR UP and TRIO
work with students and
families to ensure that
they are aware of financial
aid and scholarship
opportunities and
processes to acquire funds
for school. College
entrance requirements and
application procedures are
incorporated. Test taking
information, including
dates is also a regular part
of each program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4: Continued
33
Comnrehensive
Counseling Model
Opportunities for college
counseling
GEAR UP and TRIO both
offer students
opportunities for college
counseling. GEAR UP
provides training for
faculty development
including teacher
education around college
awareness procedures.
Testing and
Curriculum
Information about access
to “ gate keeping” tests
(PSAT, SAT, etc. and
rigorous coursework
Both programs provide
access and support for
standardized test prep.
Upward Bound offers a 6-
week summer school for
students to access rigorous
coursework, particularly
in Math and Science.
GEAR UP supports
teacher & curriculum
development and
articulation.
Faculty Involvement
Informed, active
participation and support
from school faculty
As a pull-out program,
TRIO does not have the
faculty impact that GEAR
UP can provide. However,
TRIO professionals work
closely with school
personnel. GEAR UP has
funds allocated from
teacher development and
curriculum development.
GEAR UP state grants
often focus heavily on
faculty involvement goals.
Family Involvement
Meaningful engagement
on the part o f the family
TRIO programs differ per
site but offer workshops
and training opportunities
for parents in the areas of
college awareness and
financial aid. GEAR UP
programs have a parent
involvement component of
their programs and work
to incorporate families and
parents into the school
structure.
College Partnershins
Active Links in a variety of
forms to local colleges
and universities
TRIO and GU provide
college tours. Upward
Bound provides a 6-week
summer program on a
college campus. GEAR
UP is formed on the
concept of partnerships
and requires that such
private/public partnerships
exist within the
management structure of
the grants.
Articulation
On-going coordination
between counselors,
teachers and schools
GU encourages
articulation between
feeder schools and the
higher education
community. Funds are
allocated to support those
efforts. TRIO provides
counseling to ensure that
students are accessing a
rigorous curriculum.
Remedial education and
tutoring is offered through
both programs.
(Derived from Patricia McDonough, UCLA, 20004)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
Implications for GEAR UP and TRIO
The research based structures of both the GEAR UP and TRIO programs
contribute to the success that they have had in increasing access for low income and
first generation college students. For example, reports from the Council for
Opportunity in Education indicate that TRIO programs have had the following
impact:
• Upward Bound students are four times as likely to earn an undergraduate
degree than those with similar backgrounds not in TRIO.
• Student Support Services students are more than twice as likely to remain in
college as those with similar backgrounds not in TRIO.
• 20% of Black and Hispanic freshmen entering college in 1981 received help
from Talent Search or EOC Programs (Fields, 2001).
GEAR UP has also been praised for its efforts. Although the program is too
young to have produced significant longitudinal results (the first grantees will not
have completed their programs until October 2005), GEAR UP has been given high
marks for its program design and adherence to effective school reform practices (US
Department of Education, 2004). A national study by the Policy and Program Studies
Service of the U.S. Department of Education found that among the GEAR UP school
sites, “GEAR UP was seen as a positive force for academic improvement” (p. 3,
2002).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
The programmatic structures of both programs and the results that they have
demonstrated over the years have earned GEAR UP and TRIO an excellent
reputation amongst peers and access professionals. For example, the longitudinal
study Pathways to a Four-Year Degree: The Higher Education Story of One-
Generation, acknowledges GEAR UP and TRIO for their “recognition of the
importance that academic preparation, awareness of opportunities for college, and
assistance in completing the college application process plays for low-income
students whose parents are not college educated” (Cabrera et al, 2001, p. 1).
In the policy document produced by the Institute of Higher Education Policy,
(2003) GEAR UP and TRIO were recognized for their effective ability to address the
societal and cultural barriers that are faced by students from low-income
communities as they prepare for and transition to college. The Advisory
Commission on Student Financial Assistance (2002) declared that TRIO and GEAR
UP were excellent models for effective federal programs, with particular praise for
their ability to provide information, intervention, and scholarship aid.
In addition, in the United Negro College Fund’s letter to the administration
outlining their recommendations for the upcoming reauthorization, the Association
applauded the “high quality intervention and support services efforts” of both TRIO
and GEAR UP (United Negro College Fund’s University Continuing Educational
Association, 2003, p.5) and strongly recommended the continuation of each
program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
Unfortunately, the programs have not received the same accolades from the
federal level. In March 2004, the federal government released the results from the
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Assessments. As described by the
Federal Government, “PART is a systematic method of assessing the performance of
program activities across the federal government. The PART is a diagnostic tool; the
main objective of the PART review is to improve program performance. The PART
assessments help link performance to budget decisions and provide a basis for
making recommendations to improve results” (PART Assessments, URL:
https:// www. whitehouse. gov/ omb/budget/pma/education, pdf 2004, p.2).
Unfortunately, TRIO programs did not fare well in this comprehensive
report. TRIO’s Student Support Services and the Talent Search Programs were each
given a rating of “Results Not Demonstrated” due to a perceived lack of evaluation
standards and criteria. Upward Bound was even more harshly reviewed and received
the rating of “Ineffective”. According to the report, “Upward Bound has not been
effective in increasing college preparation and enrollment of its program participants
at large (PART Assessments, 2004, p. 99).
However, the report also conceded that “Upward Bound has had significant
effects on increased college enrollment and program persistence for ‘high-risk’, low-
income students. Unfortunately, the study revealed that Upward Bound is
inadequately targeted to these students” (ibid, p. 99). In other words, the same
studies have found that Upward Bound serves low-income students who are also
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
facing additional barriers particularly well, but since that is not their primary
audience, they cannot receive credit for their progress in that area.
The rating of “Ineffective” and the conflicting remarks about the impact of
the Upward Bound Program has greatly confused and concerned many TRIO
professionals and the staff at the Council of Opportunity in Education (COE). They
are worried that these results could negatively impact federal appropriations for the
programs. In fact, early rumors indicate that the President’s new budget will include
detrimental cuts to both the Talent Search and Upward Bound Programs.
GEAR UP fared better in the evaluations, but not up to the expectations of
NCCEP and other advocates. The PART Assessment Study gave GEAR UP a
ranking of “Adequate” based on the conclusion that the program has key
performance indicators and is well managed, but lacks data at this time.
Consequently, these findings, coupled with the rising concern about the
inability of the two programs to get along, could have significant impacts on the
future of both programs. In this age of accountability, it is not surprising that
Congress intends to conduct comprehensive evaluations of the recipients of HEA
funding during the Reauthorization process. This includes scrutiny of the programs
that have historically been favorites of the past Higher Education Acts. Student loan
eligibility calculations, aid based funding mechanisms including Pell Grants and
established Title IV programs will all be under in-depth review.
A 2002 report from the Congressional Research Service announced that, “At
issue for the Congress is whether the current HEA programs adequately promote the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
traditional HEA goal of expanding access to postsecondary education for
disadvantaged individuals” (Higher Education Act: Reauthorization Status and
Issues, 2002, p.6).
In addition, Congress has posed the specific question of “whether the current
support services programs- TRIO and GEAR UP- are adequate to their task and
whether they may be excessively and inefficiently duplicative of each other” (ibid.).
Results would indicate that yes, GEAR UP and TRIO are adequate to the
task. In addition, the programmatic differences of the programs prevent inefficient
duplications of services. TRIO has a “pull out model” that intensively serves the
students with the highest risks of not achieving their educational goals. GEAR UP
serves entire schools while building community partnerships for sustainable,
systematic change. There are impressive stories throughout the United States of
GEAR UP and TRIO programs that work together and leverage their limited
resources to better serve students, families and schools.
Unfortunately, the on-going conflict between the entities may be adding to
the negative feelings towards these two programs at the federal level. Instead of
hearing about the impacts on student achievement provided by GEAR UP and TRIO,
or the scientific based program designs of each program, a great deal of focus has
been targeted toward the conflict instead.
This conflict has existed since the inception of the GEAR UP program in
1997. It has continued to escalate with potentially dire consequences for both groups.
Until recently, there did not appear to be any chance for reconciliation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
The joint press release indicates a new chapter for the GEAR UP/ TRIO
relationship. However, questions still remain. Is the press release enough to prove to
legislators that die two programs can effectively work together to achieve their
goals? Can one press release override the barrage of negative publicity that has come
before it? Is this the first step towards a more powerful, unified relationship? The
following Chapter provides the context for answering these questions by illustrating
the tumultuous history of the GEAR UP and TRIO Programs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 3: The History of GEAR UP and TRIO
40
Lyndon Johnson originally signed the Higher Education Act into law in 1965.
The purpose of the act was to encourage greater participation in post secondary
education and to make higher education accessible to more people. Title IV of the
Higher Education Act outlines the provisions of Student Assistance Programs, which
were designed to increase equity in education. Specifically, this provision called for
the creation of programs that would enable more people to pursue and succeed in
post-secondary education. Title IV specifically targets students from low socio
economic backgrounds, students with disabilities, first-generation college students,
and students of color.
The Upward Bound program already existed at the time that the Higher
Education Act was first implemented. In fact, Upward Bound was created under the
Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 in response to Johnson’s War on Poverty, and
was transferred into this new Act as one of the cornerstones. The Talent Search
Program was added in 1965, and the Student Support Service (SSS) Program was
added shortly thereafter. These three programs were termed the TRIO programs and
to this day have become synonymous with the Higher Education Act Title IV
provision for Student Assistance Programs. Affectionately know as “Access” or
“Pre-collegiate Outreach” programs by professionals working in the field, the TRIO
programs now include not three, but eight different programs designed to encourage
students from diverse, nontraditional backgrounds to pursue higher education. They
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
also provide support services, academic and financial, for these students along the
way.
In 1997, President Clinton, as part of his K-12 educational reform movement,
created the GEAR UP program. The GEAR UP program faced scrutiny right from
the start because it was seen as a duplication of earlier efforts. Funding for the
Higher Education Act, and specifically the TRIO programs, is always financially
tenuous, and GEAR UP was seen as a threat to already scarce resources. The
Upward Bound and Talent Search Programs, which also target students in the 6-12
grades, were particularly concerned. However, in the 1998 renewal of the Higher
Education Act, GEAR UP was officially included as a Title IV Access Program.
In defense of Clinton, the GEAR UP program is actually very different from
its TRIO brethren. For example, the TRIO programs tend to support individuals.
The GEAR UP program was designed to support entire schools. Also, TRIO
programs often have larger service areas, serving students from multiple high
schools throughout a school district.
In TRIO programs, such as Talent Search and Upward Bound, individuals
qualify for the program by meeting the socio-economic standard set by the US
Department of Education, or by having parents that did not go to college. Once
chosen for the program, students receive tutoring and counseling services, participate
in a six-week summer school program, take part in visits to college campuses and
participate in a variety of cultural events.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
GEAR UP does not focus on the individual, but instead focuses on the entire
school. If a certain number of students come from families that satisfy the
requirements of “low income” set by the US Department of Education, then the
entire school is served. Using their terminology, GEAR UP serves “cohorts” and not
individuals. Cohorts can be comprised of single or multiple grade levels that
progressively “follow” the students as they emerge through junior and high school
toward graduation.
GEAR UP stands for “Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs”, and program services are delivered accordingly. Starting
no later than the 7th grade, GEAR UP provides services that make students aware of
the collegiate options that are available to them and then continues to provide the
interventions necessary so that children can actualize those options. Just like TRIO,
GEAR UP provides tutoring services, financial aid information, college tours and
cultural enrichment activities. Unlike TRIO, GEAR UP also provides funding for
school/business partnerships, faculty development and parent advisory boards.
The GEAR UP Program is also quite unique in another way. Unlike the
TRIO programs that have existed since 1965, the GEAR UP program promised it
would be temporary. The GEAR UP program lobbied that because their program
included resources for systemic change, it would only need funding for one program
cycle. GEAR UP requires significant in-kind and financial partnership support. In
fact, GEAR UP programs must agree to provide $1 of in-kind or local financial
support for every $1 given by the Federal Government. The premise of GEAR UP
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
was that five years of “seed money” would result in relationships that would be
sustained beyond the grant funding. After that, the exciting and innovative ideas of
GEAR UP would have become embedded into the infrastructure of the school and
systemic change would have occurred.
Not surprisingly, as the initial five year cycle reaches completion, GEAR UP
advocates are now realizing that five years is not long enough for educational
revolution and that another cycle of funding will be needed. Their request for an
increase of funding has raised tensions between the two programs. Specifically at
odds are the two lobbying groups that support TRIO and GEAR UP, which are the
Council for Opportunity in Education (COE) and the National Council for
Community and Education Partnerships (NCCEP), respectively.
Council for Opportunity in Education (COE) and the National Council
for Community and Education Partnerships (NCCEP)
The Council for Opportunity in Education (COE) has been in existence since
1981. According to its mission statement, “COE in a non-profit organization of
colleges, universities and agencies founded to further postsecondary educational
opportunity in the United States. COE also provides a voice in federal education
policy for institutions and agencies concerned about expanding opportunity for low-
income, first-generation and disabled students, as well as for faculty and
administrators working to do so” (2004). Under the direction of President Arnold
Mitehum, COE is incredibly well respected as a resource for program design and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
evaluation, lobbying efforts, staff development and proposal writing. The Pell
Institute, a new program sponsored by COE, also does research that supports
effective practices for serving low-income students.
Founded in 1999 through support from the Ford and Kellogg Foundations,
the National Council for Community and Education Partnerships (NCCEP) evolved
with GEAR UP. In fact, Hector Garza, the founding President of NCCEP, was asked
personally by the Clinton Administration to develop an innovative program to
support educational and socially disadvantaged youth. Hector Garza and his team
actively lobbied for GEAR UP before it became an actual program. NCCEP now
serves as the support program for 12 other education initiatives such as the Engaging
Latino Communities in Education Program (ENLACE) and the James Irvine
Foundation, California Education Reform Network.
NCCEP’s mission, “creating and strengthening community/education
partnerships to provide low-income children with equal access to higher education”
(2004), is achieved through advocacy, leveraging financial resources, partnership
building, consultative advice, and national and regional meetings. Hector Garza and
NCCEP also lead many research initiatives that explore the importance of K-16
partnerships and corporate sponsorships as effective methods of comprehensive
school reform. In truth, just like TRIO and GEAR UP, both COE and NCCEP are
actually very different entities. The Bryson (1995) SWOT model for program
evaluation provides an excellent framework by which to examine the similarities and
differences of the COE and NCCEP organizations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5: SWOT Analysis
45
Council for Opportunities in
Education
Strengths
• 23 year history of service
• Strong political power
• Excellent Staff Development
Programs
• Excellent Proposal Writing and
Program Design Services
• Name recognition
• Intensive Services for individual
students
• Avoidance of alliance with any
political party
Weaknesses
• Criticized for lack of
sustainability
• High cost for serving
participants
• Membership to COE very
expensive
• Non- ambitious goals
• TRIO has not performed well
on national assessments
National Council for Community
& Education Partnerships
Strengths
• Strong corporate sponsorships
• Excellent political power
• Timely marketing strategies
• Strong focus on accountability
• Persistent message on
developing and sustaining K-16
and community partnerships
• Focus of school reform
measures
• Alliance with NCLB
• Systemic reform ultimate goal
Weaknesses
• Relatively new program
• Complete association with
NCLB
• Risky strategy of school reform
for only $800 per student
• Extremely ambitious goals
• Lack of Staff Development
Opportunities
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
Table 5: SWOT Analysis (Continued)
Opportunities
• COE well positioned to mentor
NCCEP; especially in their Staff
Development Efforts.
• COE has thousands of
members, could serve as a
strong, unifying force.
• GEAR UP can provide
supplemental services for TRIO
programs
* COE could ultimately gain
from a political platform that
unifies both groups
Threats
• Perceived as aggressive toward
GEAR UP/NCCEP
• Excellent work supporting
educationally disadvantaged
students at risk of being
overshadowed
• Too expensive
• Prior Experience points
• Seen by some as an entitlement
program
• Ill-prepared for HEA
Reauthorization
Opportunities
• NCCEP well positioned to serve
as leader in corporate
partnerships, K-16 partnerships
• NCCEP could learn a great deal
from COE about effective
strategies for working with
educationally disadvantaged
students
* NCCEP could ultimately gain
from a political platform that
unifies both groups
Threats
• Association with NCLB
• Excellent work supporting
educationally disadvantaged
students at risk of being
overshadowed
• Speculation that they may be a
“Flash in the Pan,” lack of
sustainability
• Ill-prepared for HEA
Reauthorization
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
According to Clark and Estes, employees need knowledge, skills and
motivation to solve the problems with which they are faced (Clark & Estes, 2002).
In my opinion, NCCEP and COE are both staffed with education professionals that
have exceptional skills and abilities and the knowledge to effectively serve students
and programs. However, I do not know if the respective staffs have the motivation or
desire to support the staffs of the other organization. From my interviews with staff
members, I have learned that this is changing as staff turnover in the institutions
continues to grow. New staff members do not seem to have the same animosity and
territorialism as original team members. In addition, the increasing complex political
climate has also served as a motivational tool.
As indicated in the chart, the NCCEP and COE, although they share some
commonalities, are in fact very unique. Unfortunately, their focus on serving
disadvantaged youth in the middle and high schools has led to constant comparison.
Consequently, political strategies between the two groups have often felt like a
competition, with both programs fighting for a limited piece of the funding pie. In
fact, some feel that the entire battle between GEAR UP and TRIO can be traced to
the relations between the two support groups. With both organizations holding a
great deal of political clout, they should be in excellent position to support each
other. However, in reality the opposite is occurring.
This has not escaped the notice of the media, the “beltway” or other
observers. A March 14,2003 article in the Chronicle of Higher Education entitled,
“Programs for Disadvantaged Students Feud Over Their Futures” sums up the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
political climate regarding these two programs at this time. TRIO is being accused
of being stagnant, and GEAR UP is being accused of having unrealistic expectations
regarding faculty development and systematic change (Burd, 2003).
For example, Joan Becker, associate vice-provost for the University of
Massachusetts at Boston, long-time TRIO supporter, and a Board Member of COE,
was just one of the many people that felt that GEAR UP’s original goals were not
realistic. “If we could reform schools in five years with the $800.00 per student
allotted through GEAR UP, we would have solved all of the problems within our
educational system already” (Becker in Burd, 2003, p. 1 A)
In addition, a 2003 Issue Brief prepared by COE entitled “GEAR UP and
TRIO: Similar Goals, Contrasting Policies and Programs” delivered a strong critique
of the GEAR UP program. In this widely distributed publication, COE accused the
GEAR UP program of having a “flawed model for the delivery of services to needy
students in middle and high school” (2003, p. 17).
On the other hand, Dr. Garza, the president of NCCEP, has accused the TRIO
grants of being stagnant. In the July 15,2003 Hearing before the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, Garza, declared that “of the two, GEAR UP is the
younger and more contemporary, using research-driven practices that focus on what
matters most- student achievement and academic success” (2003, p. 5 8). Garza also
claimed that in comparison to TRIO, GEAR UP is closer aligned to the goals of the
Bush Administration’s Education Initiative “No Child Left Behind” (Ibid., 2003).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
TRIO has a proven track record of results over die last 35 years. However, at
the moment, those results are being overshadowed in the political arena by GEAR
UP’s marketing and political savvy. Every component of the GEAR UP program is
now aligned with the “No Child Left Behind Act” and President Bush’s agenda for
school reform. The faculty development piece, systemic school reform, partnerships
with businesses and a strong evaluation piece are just a few examples of the
commonalties. In addition, much of the literature supporting the project has been
changed to include Bush’s new legislation. GEAR UP t-shirts, mugs, banners, and
literature now include the catch phrase, “GEAR UP Leaves No Child Behind.”
Ironically, these are the aspects of GEAR UP that TRIO is the most against.
COE originally lobbied against GEAR UP’s faculty development and systemic
school reform components. COE has since softened their stance to say that GEAR
UP should simply limit the dollars that they spend on faculty development and
reform efforts.
In this political climate, these are the very demands that have given GEAR
UP its political edge. The results: in the past two appropriation cycles, GEAR UP
received a small increase while most TRIO programs received leveled-funding
(2004). In 2005, GEAR UP received an 11% increase as opposed to TRIO’s 4%
gain. This has further fueled the discourse between the lobbying groups.
The Chronicle of Higher Education article (mentioned above) presents a
detailed overview of the progression of the conflict. “Here in Washington, relations
between the advocates of GEAR UP and TRIO have never been good. With the law
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
that governs the two programs set to expire soon, advocates for both are steeling
themselves for a battle over the future of GEAR UP” (Burd, 2003, p. A21).
According to the article, tensions between the programs began right away in
1998, when Congress created GEAR UP. TRIO programs had long declared that
they lacked the financial resources to serve the students that they aimed to serve.
GEAR UP was seen as a threat to already scarce resources. In addition, TRIO
claimed that there was not a need for a new program. TRIO argued that “many of
the same goals that the administration and lawmakers had for GEAR UP could be
achieved with an infusion of funds into Talent Search, (the TRIO program that
already serves 6-12* grades). Naturally TRIO supporters were not happy when
Congress did decide to create another federal early intervention program and the
Clinton Administration poured money into it” (Burd, 2003, p.A21).
GEAR UP advocates, however, fought back by challenging the effectiveness
of Talent Search. Proponents point out that Talent Search and GEAR UP are
completely different programs. For example, Talent Search serves individuals,
whereas GEAR UP serves entire schools (Burd, 2003).
A move that seemed to fuel the tension between GEAR UP and TRIO
occurred when the Council for Opportunity in Education (COE) submitted a proposal
requesting that Congress move GEAR UP under the TRIO umbrella in the
Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. As stated in the Chronicle article,
“COE officials claimed that they were trying to protect GEAR UP from the budget
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
knives of Republican lawmakers who dislike the program because it was originally
championed by the Clinton Administration” (Burd, 2003, p. A21).
According to Debra Henderson, COE’s Vice President of Public Policy,
“TRIO programs have strong, bipartisan support. And, some lawmakers still think of
GEAR UP as a legacy of the Clinton Administration. We believe that our proposal
(to put GEAR UP in TRIO) would help to protect GEAR UP funding” (Henderson in
Burd, 2003, p. A21).
Unfortunately, COE also put conditions on the move. COE said that they
would only absorb GEAR UP if they got rid of their teacher development piece and
scaled back the GEAR UP program component that calls for systematic change.
GEAR UP refused, they did not want to change these elements of the program nor
did they trust the intentions of the offer. According to the Chronicle of Higher
Education Article, “Given the bad blood, GEAR UP proponents did not trust the
assurances of COE that its proposal meant to strengthen the program, not harm it”
(Burd, 2003, pA21).
“The Council has never liked the program,” said Hector Garza, “So I don’t
know why they would want to strengthen it” (Garza in Burd, 2003, p. A21). In
response to the COE request to alter the GEAR UP program, Garza replied, “That is
a political strategy to make GEAR UP seem just seem like any other TRIO program”
(Garza in Burd, 2003, p. A21).
COE proponents were also very vocal with their concerns about the GEAR
UP model. Joan Becker, a Board Member of COE, pointed to the unrealistic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
expectation that GEAR UP program managers tackle the challenging issue of
professional development. According to Becker, many inexperienced GEAR UP
recipients “are floundering around the expectation of having to carry out systematic
reforms” (Becker, in Burd, 2003, p. A21).
COE has also recommended to Congress that GEAR UP adopt the
controversial TRIO policy of awarding “Prior Experience” points to well-run GEAR
UP programs to give them the advantage in upcoming grant competitions. COE feels
that Prior Experience points are an effective accountability measure that encourages
programs to administer their grants more effectively. COE also feels that Prior
Experience points allow programs to create deeper relationships in the community
because well-run programs have a better chance of receiving renewal grants that will
allow them to build on the efforts that they have already made.
Garza disagrees, “When Priority Experience points are issued in the granting
process, recipients begin to see their awards as an entitlement. When people feel
entitled to the grants, it limits their creativity, innovation and accountability” (Garza
in Burd, 2003, p. A21).
Unfortunately, COE’s original response to GEAR UP may have backfired in
the eyes of crucial legislators. Representative Fattah, the Pennsylvania Democrat
who has championed GEAR UP since its inception said, “By constantly engaging on
this senseless interchange about GEAR UP, the TRIO folks risk losing support from
advocates of college-access programs. I believe that the Council (COE) has made a
very unwise choice” (Fattah in Burd, 2003, p. A21).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
Terry Hartle, the senior vice president for government and public affairs at
the American Council on Education agrees “GEAR UP is a popular program in its
own right now. It has plenty of supporters on Capital Hill. The council is facing an
uphill fight” (Hartle in Burd, 2003, p. A21).
Shortly after the Chronicle article was published, COE abandoned their
request to make GEAR UP a TRIO program. A key reason for this was the growing
popularity of the GEAR UP program, which included increased support from the
Bush Administration. As stated in the Burd article, the “Proponents of GEAR UP say
that they have won friends in the administration by demonstrating how the program
fits in with President Bush’s “Leave No Child Behind” approach to vamping
elementary and secondary schools” (Burd, 2003, p. A21).
Indeed, in attempts to better align themselves with the current administration,
GEAR UP programs adopted several components of the NCLB mandate including
data driven decision-making, strong evaluation designs, professional development
and systematic reform. This approach has worked well and thanks to a strategic
marketing and political campaign by NCCEP, GEAR UP did eventually succeed in
separating themselves from the Clinton Administration.
GEAR UP also made concessions to components of their original model that
ultimately could not be reconciled with priorities of the higher education community.
At the onset of GEAR UP, money was allocated for “last dollar” student aid
scholarships. This meant that GEAR UP students were given scholarships that were
to be in addition to the amount of their designated financial award package. This
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
caused an uproar amongst student aid professionals who resented the federal
government telling them how they were to administer financial aid. GEAR UP
relented, and eliminated the contentious policy. Since then, GEAR UP has received
the backing of student aid lobbyists and is also enjoying strong bipartisan support.
By eliminating the controversial financial aid component, GEAR UP also
gained friends within the higher education community. The American Council on
Education (ACE) voted to accept NCCEP into their ranks after NCCEP made the
GEAR UP adaptations that ACE recommended. According to an ACE member that I
interviewed, the only council member that objected to the inclusion of NCCEP was
COE. “Basically,” my interviewee said, “ACE told COE to get over it. Ironically,
COE was the one that granted the formal invitation for NCCEP to join ACE”
(Confidential personal communications, 12/21/2004).
Many claim that Hector Garza’s political savvy has propelled the GEAR UP
program into its current political favor. However, this political savvy has also
contributed to the on-going conflict between the two programs. In December 2001,
Black Issues in Higher Education published an article entitled, “Can TRIO and
GEAR UP Continue to Coexist?” This article offers pertinent insights into the TRIO
- GEAR UP relationship and into the lobbying strategy of the GEAR UP program.
According to Sarah A. Flanagan, vice president for government relations and policy
development at the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
(NAICU):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
One of the problems from the beginning is that GEAR UP came in as a bull
in the china closet. You had these wonderful TRIO programs. Everyone
loves TRIO and thinks it does wonderful things, everyone feels good about it.
Then the Clinton program came in wanting to create a signature program. We
said, ‘Look, if this is what colleges can really use, we are fine about it.’ This
is, until it became known that some of the funding for GEAR UP was going
to be generated by eliminating one of TRIO’s long-standing programs. The
decision put many TRIO advocates of GEAR UP into a defensive mode
(Flanagan in Fields, 2001, p.28).
Unfortunately, many TRIO supporters will not back GEAR UP because they
feel it is a duplication of previous efforts. Talent Search and Upward Bound have
already proven their ability to effectively serve middle and high school students. In
addition, these critics argue that for GEAR UP to be successful and sustainable,
money will have to be diverted from funds that were previously ear marked from
TRIO programs. As proclaimed in the Fields article which questions the programs’
ability to coexist, “The Clinton Administration set this concern in motion in 1998
when it tried to fund the first year of GEAR UP grants by eliminating one of the
long-standing TRIO programs” (Fields, 2001, p.28).
Higher Education advocates, such as Becky Timmons, Director of
Government Relations at the American Council of Education are waiting to see if
“GEAR UP can be made into something that the higher education community can
embrace without jeopardizing other programs” (Timmons in Fields, 2001, p.28).
Unfortunately, the lobbying strategy of Garza and GEAR UP supporters has
also served to set the programs apart. It is hard to advocate for a new program
without criticizing, intentionally or inadvertently, the existing programs. In the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
beginning, rarely was a statement made about GEAR UP that did not reference a
shortcoming of TRIO. For example, Garza has said, “TRIO has done some
tremendous work. There are many successful people, including a few member of
Congress, who have gone through the program. ..but we are living in a different era.
When the public, legislators, and school educators are all requiring more
accountability, creating system change is important. GEAR UP is doing that” (Garza
in Fields, 2001, p.30).
The following quote by Representative Fattah is another example. “One
model of intervention is to go into a high school and take five or so young people
and say, “Ok, we’re going to help get these kids ready for college.” Fattah says of
TRIO. “With GEAR UP, you go to the whole group of kids and say, ‘all of you can
make it.’” (Fattah in Fields, 2001, p.28).
Unfortunately, the charge that GEAR UP is more accountable, more
contemporary, less of an entitlement program, less exclusionary, more aligned with
NCLB, and more cost effective, can all be construed as criticisms of the TRIO
programs. Dr. Mitchum, the Director of COE, expressed his initial disappointment
with GEAR UP when they came to the table already exerting themselves as experts
in the field of serving educationally disadvantaged youth. In a speech that Mitchum
made to the NCCEP community, Mitchum expressed his concern that GEAR UP did
not seek advice from COE regarding best practices for serving these populations. In
his opinion, TRIO had forty years of experience of delivering quality work to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
education community that GEAR UP essentially ignored (Washington D.C, NCCEP
Conference, 1999).
In my interviews with individuals involved in the conflict, many site this
speech as a turning point for the NCCEP / COE relationship. “Dr. Mitchum was
obviously upset that NCCEP was going ahead with the GEAR UP program and did
not seek enough of the Council’s advice. However, you had a lot of NCCEP staff
there that were excited about their new program. They were really insulted by
Mitch’s critical remarks” (Confidential personal communications 1/12/05).
Whatever the cause of the original discontent practitioners in the field are
increasingly voicing their concerns about the conflict. In the Chronicle of Higher
Education article, “Programs for Disadvantaged Students Feud over Their Future”,
Ann Coles, the head of college-access services at the Education Resources Institute
in Boston, expressed her frustration and concern that “the two federal programs that
do the most to encourage young students from low-income families to prepare for
college just can’t get along” (Coles in Burd, 2003, p. A21).
As stated in the article, Coles is “among the hundreds of educators around the
country” managing both GEAR UP and TRIO Programs who claim that “in the field,
there is great deal of coordination and cooperation among those running the projects”
(Ibid.). Unfortunately, the political back biting between the two sides distracts
attention from the real issue, serving educationally disadvantaged students. “It’s not
healthy for these programs to be competing against each other,” Cole says. “Even
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
with both programs, we’re barely scratching the surface of the kids we could be
helping” (Coles in Burd, 2003, p. A21).
In the interviews conducted through this research report, interviewees
overwhelmingly expressed the same sentiments that Ann Coles mentioned in the
Chronicle’s report. “It is crazy that GEAR UP and TRIO have allowed themselves to
be pitted against each other. In this political climate, I am extremely mad at both
programs for falling for the old “divide and conquer” strategy. We need both of
these programs at this time and it is outrageous that they can’t figure out a way to get
along” (Confidential personal communications, 12/2/04).
Another interviewee mentioned “this fight has definitely not been isolated at
the federal level. At our school, GEAR UP and TRIO programs are housed under
one department with one Director. The GEAR UP and TRIO programs are at each
other in staff meetings. There is an undertone of competition. I especially notice it
from the TRIO people toward the GEAR UP folks” (Confidential personal
communications, 12/4/04).
Another interviewee, a long-time TRIO Director, mentioned that he had
heard that COE and NCCEP were hying to resolve their issues. “That’s great, but I
am not doing anything until I hear word directly from COE. I am one of the people
that applied for a GEAR UP grant in 1999, the first year that they were announced.
At the next COE conference I was publicly denounced, all of the TRIO programs
that had gone for GEAR UP grants were accused of essentially breaking ranks, of
doing something that would lead to the end of the Talent Search Program. It was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
really ugly; people were yelling at each other in a public meeting. I have been in
TRIO for a long time; COE has taken very good care of our programs, and I am not
going to do anything that would jeopardize that relationship. It is too bad, though,
because I think that GEAR UP could really help to serve kids in our area”
(Confidential personal communications, 10/6/04).
A GEAR UP staff member expressed a similar sentiment of loyalty. “I am
not going to associate with COE until NCCEP says it is okay. I am definitely on
NCCEP’s side, they have been our advocates and I am not going to do anything to
alienate them from our program” (Confidential personal communications, 12/4/05).
Another interviewee said, “As a new person to GEAR UP and to access
programs, I was shocked to find the level of politics and animosity that exists
between the two programs. Without knowing of the conflict, I felt very unprepared
to handle the political situations that I encountered. I deliberately tried to leam all
that I can about the conflict between COE and NCCEP just so I wouldn’t be
unprepared in political situations. Somebody should tell newcomers to be aware of
the conflict because it definitely affects your day-to-day job in this field. Better yet,
this should just be resolved. I am really glad that you are doing something about this;
it would definitely make my life much easier” (Confidential personal
communications, 12/4/05).
Interviewees also expressed concerns with both GEAR UP and TRIO that
were not about the conflict. “I just think that GEAR UP’s teacher development piece
has no place amongst Title IV HEA programs. Title II of the HEA provides for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
teacher development. GEAR UP ends up drawing money from other Title IV
programs instead of receiving appropriate allocations from Title 1 1 ” (Confidential
personal communications, 10/7/04).
“I think that TRIO programs have been great. However, they have to drop
their fight for Prior Experience points. I have found that many TRIO professionals
are more worried about the preservation of their own jobs than services for children.
To me, Prior Experience points are really just so veteran staff can ensure that they
can keep their TRIO careers right up until retirement. It is not about the kids. Many
TRIO staff, in my opinion, have adopted a union mentality. They have adopted the
mantra “I am entitled to this job, keep it easy, don’t make too many changes”... it has
become all about the staff and not about the students” (Confidential personal
communications, 12/21/04).
Others were equally critical of GEAR UP and NCCEP. “Hector is so
political; I think that he has orchestrated this fight from the beginning. I think that
GEAR UP has benefited from the constant comparison to the TRIO programs. TRIO
is established and well respected, the constant comparison of GEAR UP, a new
program, to TRIO, an experienced, well-known program, only helped GEAR UP”
(Confidential personal communications, 10/28/04).
Whereas the opinions of the interviewees were all very different, there was a
strong consensus that the conflict needed to be resolved. The loyalties that GEAR
UP and TRIO staff had toward NCCEP and COE, respectively, were very clear.
However, despite that, all interviewees expressed their opinion that the conflict was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
unnecessarily hindering the work and reputation of both TRIO and GEAR UP. This
message is not lost on the COE and NCCEP staffs. “Ultimately we are about the
members that we serve” a COE staff member said. “Our membership wants us to
resolve this thing” (Confidential personal communications, 10/28/04).
In the summer of 2004, a series of events occurred that unintentionally
brought the issue between GEAR UP and TRIO to a new level. In June 2004, COE
offered “an unsanctioned” staff development training for GEAR UP participants.
NCCEP is the agency designated by the US Department of Education to provide
technical support for GEAR UP grants. Consequently, COE’s attempt to market a
seminar directly to GEAR UP participants was against standard protocol. In addition,
COE also inferred that NCCEP’s close relationship to the Department of Education
hindered their ability to effectively serve GEAR UP programs.
NCCEP responded by offering a free training at the same time as the seminar
being offered by COE, proclaiming that the COE training was not authorized by the
Department of Education. As a result, the COE training only had approximately
thirty participants, resulting in a huge financial loss to the organization.
This series of events definitely brought the more subliminal messages straight
out into the open. Some participants, including this researcher, feel that this is
probably good. As Bensimon (2004) says, simply calling attention to a situation is
sometimes the best way to start reconciliation of the issue. Luckily, in this case,
Bensimon was correct, public attention of the issue did lead to action.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
On the Road Towards Reconciliation
In July 2004, at the fifth annual GEAR UP convention in Washington D.C,
the action began. With over 2000 people in attendance each year, this annual
convention is the means by which GEAR UP participants from throughout the
United States join together to share best practices. It is also the opportunity to learn
about recent legislation and the macro level issues that will effect or direct the work
at the ground level. NCCEP, the organization that has been contracted by the US
Department of Education to support GEAR UP programs, runs the event.
When 1 arrived at this year’s conference, 1 was surprised to find a special
invitation to a private breakfast meeting. I was invited because of my somewhat
unique role as an administrator of both GEAR UP and TRIO programs.
Hector Garza, the Director of NCCEP, called our breakfast meeting. His
purpose for the meeting was to seek counsel from the people in the field that
currently work with both TRIO and GEAR UP programs. His goal was to create
insight as to why the two programs are at odds.
The response of the group was startling. All 45 participants, representing
TRIO and GEAR UP Programs from throughout the United States, were very quick
to tell Dr. Garza that this issue began as a “beltway” problem. The group, in no
uncertain terms, let Dr. Garza know that both programs work quite effectively at the
ground level. As one participant expressed, “Hector, let’s make this clear. This fight
is between NCCEP and COE, not practitioners.” Another participant stated even
more directly, “It looks in the field as if it is a personal fight between you and Mitch
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
(the President of COE), That is the saddest thing of all, because all the great work of
both programs is being reduced to a personal fight. And, even worse, people have
reduced it to a fight between a Latino man and a black man.”
Hector admitted to the group that the conflict has risen to an unacceptable
level. He sincerely expressed his overwhelming desire to find ways to solve the
problem. He also shared that he did not feel that the problem rested between him
and Arnold Mitchum. “Mitch and I have been friends for 35 years. We talk regularly.
I don’t think that the issue lies between him and me.” However, he did not have
insight as to when or why the relationship had deteriorated to the point that it has.
Hector also expressed his deep concern about the impact of the ongoing feud.
“Legislators are asking us (NCCEP) about the nature of the conflict. They want to
know if the programs work together effectively or if the services are redundant. They
also want to know if they (the programs) can continue to work together through this
conflict.”
Hector expressed to the group his sense of urgency that COE and NCCEP
figure out a way to answer that question. Hector felt that it was imperative that
NCCEP and COE speak in a common voice and that the two groups find a common
strategy for working together to advocate for both programs. He emphasized that a
common platform is crucial for ensuring that both GEAR UP and TRIO are well
positioned to defend their programs, and more importantly, the principals of
accessibility and affordability that define their programs, in the upcoming
Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
Hector asked the group for suggestions about ways to improve the
relationship. Members of the group that affiliate strongly with COE accepted the
invitation to move toward reconciliation. All participants in the meeting expressed
their strong desire that COE and NCCEP put aside their political differences and find
a cohesive strategy.
After the meeting, relations between the two organizations did begin to
change. The staffs of both NCCEP and COE committed to monthly meetings to
resolve the current disenchantment. The meetings were slow to get off the ground,
due to conflicting agendas and busy schedules, but they did take place, with serious
issues being addressed.
From a bystander perspective, I was very worried when, in November 2004,
shortly after the Higher Education Act was given a one-year extension, COE again
announced an unsanctioned GEAR UP training without the knowledge of the
NCCEP staff. I was concerned that this would derail the reconciliation efforts.
However, NCCEP and COE continued to work through that issue. As mentioned in
Chapter 1, their efforts have resulted in a joint press release praising the work of both
programs and seeking additional funds from next year’s appropriations.
Along the rocky road toward reconciliation, there has been a marked
improvement in the political strategies of both GEAR UP and TRIO. At the very
least, it seems as if the two programs have decided to keep their dirty laundry out of
the media. Gone are the days when COE felt free to discuss the strengths or
weaknesses of the GEAR UP Program. COE has backed away from any public
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
criticisms or suggestions regarding the GEAR UP program and, in fact, rarely
mention GEAR UP at all.
On the other hand, the GEAR UP strategy seems to be an enthusiastic attempt
to assure that people understand that the two programs are unique and perfectly able
to work together. Since September of 2004,1 have found that that Hector Garza and
the NCCEP staff do not mention GEAR UP without complimenting TRIO in some
way as well.
This unfortunately, does not mean the disenchantment has dissolved. It does
mean however, that both COE and NCCEP, or at least their directors, have
contemplated ways to keep the blatant discourse out of the news media. The
dramatic turn in the political strategies of both groups seems very deliberate and
much planned. Unfortunately, the question still remains as to whether or not the
reconciliation has come too late.
The press release was very powerful. However, it blatantly lacked any
substance regarding the relationship of the two programs. Legislators and
practitioners are already aware of the conflict and are directly seeking comment from
both COE and NCCEP on the ability of the two programs to work together and
compliment each other’s efforts. The new political strategies and the press release
are excellent steps in the right direction. Unfortunately, by not acknowledging past
realities, it does make a person wonder: Is this truly a new era of the GEAR/ TRIO
relationship or is it merely an example of avoidance and denial?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
However, the press release and the new strategies also show that COE and
NCCEP are willing to change their tactics to better position their programs for the
upcoming Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. COE, NCCEP and program
participants all seem to recognize that the stakes for access and the continued
services to low-income students are currently at a crossroads. Hector Garza has led
the charge and COE has responded accordingly. There is also a strong voice from
practitioners urging the reconciliation. These are very good signs.
The timing could not be any more crucial. As a professional involved with
both programs proclaimed, “Ideologically, there is just no support for these programs
right now, it is going to be a rocky road toward the Reauthorization this year”
(Confidential personal communications, 12/21/04).
To dispel any remaining doubts about this contention, the following chapter
will clearly outline the context in which the Reauthorization is taking place and
discuss the consequences that could exist should GEAR UP and TRIO not continue
to strive to solve their own issues and redirect their energy toward the broader issues
of access and federal higher education policy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
Chapter 4: Political Context
“Warning- Demographic and Economic Forces are converging to limit states’
ability to protect, much less expand, college access over the next decade” (Economic
Commission of the States, Ruppert, p.4). This warning sign, prompted by conflicting
priorities at the federal and state level combined with limited discretionary funds for
higher education, is the impetus for Chapter 4. It also emphasizes the intent behind
my entire study which is an admonition to GEAR UP and TRIO that challenging
political times are ahead.
Chapter 3 served to validate the contention that GEAR UP and TRIO have a
tenuous relationship and that the disagreements between the two programs often take
center stage in articles that discuss the work of both programs. This chapter will
emphasize the potential consequences of this battle by exploring the political context
in which the GEAR UP / TRIO conflict is taking place. This will be accomplished
through:
• An examination of the role of the federal government in higher education.
• An overview of the political trends that have dominated policy decisions over
the last four decades and the transitions from access to accountability.
• A discussion of the upcoming Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act,
and the political and economic realities in which the next Reauthorization
will take place.
The motivation behind this chapter is to encourage GEAR UP and TRIO to solve
the problem. By clearly articulating the political arena in which this conflict is taking
place, I hope to highlight the urgency for the stakeholders and spark their continued
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
desire to resolve their issues. Consequently, the goal of the literature review is the
same goal as the dissertation as a whole: to encourage GEAR UP and TRIO to come
together as a united voice in what is bound to be a challenging political fight, with
huge consequences for both of the programs and ultimately, the goals of access and
opportunity on which both programs are based.
Role of Federal Government in Higher Education
As was discussed in Chapter 2, the HEA was not the first effort by the
Federal Government to expand access to post secondary education for broader
societal gains. The Land-Grant College Acts of 1862 and 1890 were created to
stimulate access to higher education for the purpose of national economic
development (Woianin, 2003), In addition, the G.I. Bill of 1944 was created to
cultivate and broaden the middle class through expanded access to education.
However, the Truman Commission of 1947 represented the first deliberate actions by
the federal government to proclaim that access to post secondaiy education was an
essential societal and economic value.
In contrast to earlier attempts at federal intervention, the Higher Education
Act of 1965 was the first law that included the authority for the Federal Government
to implement the programming that supported its intentions. For example, the HEA
allowed the federal government to create policy that provided student aid, student
support service programs, and grant assistance. Consequently, the HEA truly
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
redefined the role that the federal government played in higher education (Breneman
in Heller, 2001).
Access, Affordability and Accountability: The Changing Trends
During the remainder of the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s the primary focus of
federal education policy was to promote higher education access to a broader United
States citizenry. The social values dictating these policy decisions were the shared
feeling that educated citizens would contribute to both the political and economic
realms of the country as a whole.
In the 1990’s a new trend emerged: affordability. In the beginning,
affordability was closely aligned with access because inherent to the access issue
was the need to make education more affordable for more people. Policy decisions
regarding student financial aid, subsidies for students and student grant aid reflected
the goal of affordability. Unfortunately, in the mid to late 90’s, the rising concern
over the cost of education began to influence higher education policy in an
increasingly restrictive pattern (Hauptman in Heller, 2001). Student loans began
replacing grant funding to students, resulting in a huge increase in the amount of debt
accumulated for many of today’s graduates.
According to the Institute of Higher Education Policy, the changing trend of
financial aid had broader implications. These shifts “reflect an implicit change in
philosophy, from the belief that the benefits of higher education are broad and
public, and therefore warrant federal support, to the belief that the benefits are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
largely private, thereby justifying that costs be borne by individuals” (Wolanin,
2003, p. 33).
In addition, the 90’s reflected another transition in affordability policy
decisions. The Hope Tax Credit and Lifelong Learning Credit were trumpeted as a
dynamic way to make higher education more affordable. In reality, student
incentives in the form of tax credits do more to support students already in college
than they do to encourage students from lower socio-economic backgrounds to
pursue post secondary education. For example, it is highly unlikely that a family
from poverty would be motivated by the fact that they might receive money six to
nine months in the future during the next tax cycle (Wolanin, 2003).
These policies also represent a switch in the target population of federal
higher education policy. Rather than targeting individuals from the lowest socio
economic background, the new target population is the middle and upper class.
“Indeed, affordability has now become a code word for policies that help middle and
upper- income families pay for higher education, as opposed to the more common
definition that refers to all families” (Breneman in Heller, 2001).
The report Challenging Times, Clear Choices, An Action Agenda for College
Access and Success (2003), published by the Pathways to College Network
concurred stating,
While federal and state governments, as well as individual colleges and
universities, have expanded their investment in financial assistance to college
students, a declining percentage of that spending is devoted to need-based
financial aid. Programs targeted at middle and upper middle families, such as
student loans, federal tax deductions, tax credits, state merit programs, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
institutional merit programs have been growing much faster than need-based
programs (The College Board, Trends in Student Aid, 2002: Sandy Baum,
2003; Donald Heller, 2003, p.2).
In another example, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES,
2003b) found that Financial Aid has increased over the last decade. However,
Most of the increases in aid seem to have gone to students from the highest
income bracket. The percentage of highest-income students receiving
financial aid grew from 13 percent to 18 percent, while there was no increase
in the percentage of lowest income students receiving aid. Some, but not all,
of that increase has been the result of the shift of financial aid to more merit-
aid. At the same time, the average amount of aid received increased far more
for highest-income students than it did for low-income students (NCES data
inTinto, 2004, p. 13).
“In this administration,” as an interviewee proclaimed, “access for students
really means access for the middle class. In this administration, new interventions are
aimed at the people that vote for them” (Confidential personal communications,
12/21/04).
Accountability is another emerging philosophical trend dramatically
influencing higher education policy. In the article “Public Policy and Accountability:
Lessons from the Past and Present for the New Millennium”, William Zumetta
(2001) contends that the societal values of access and affordability have now been
replaced with an increased urgency over accountability. Accountability of higher
education as a policy trend is a rather new phenomenon in United States Education
(Zumetta, 2001). This has overridden the prevailing policy trend that has been to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
support academic freedom at the institution with limited state and/or federal
government micromanagement into the procedural affairs of higher education.
Until recently, the lay boards that govern institutions of higher education and
the appointed state boards that oversee educational systems at the state level were
seen as sufficient watch dogs of accountability. However, due to declining state
budgets, the breaches of trust at some institutions of higher education, and the
accountability platform of the current administration, accountability has become the
dominant trend dictating higher education policy at the state and federal levels.
For example, a majority of states have attempted to set performance measures
that gauge the effectiveness of the higher education institution. Thirteen other states
have implemented performance based funding mechanisms that tie state funding to
the institution’s ability to meet state standards. Unfortunately, research has found
that over 42% of the performance indicators that were implemented nationally to
measure outcomes of higher education are actually measures of process, not impact
(Heller, 2001).
As repeatedly claimed by the administration, accountability is the cornerstone
of Bush’s education reform (Peterson and West, 2002). In fact, as proclaimed by the
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, immediately after the 2000
election Bush made it clear that “he wanted to bring Texas style accountability to the
nation at large” (Hess and Kelly, 2004, p.2). Unfortunately, politicians are
promising accountability, even if effective systems for accountability have yet to be
determined.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
In fact, recent trends for accountability may actually override earlier efforts
to promote access. Performance based funding awards may encourage institutions to
be more selective in the students they admit. For example, the concept of linking
performance awards to colleges that graduate students in a certain amount of time is
actually counterintuitive to the issue of access, because it will discourage institutions
from accepting the highest risk students.
Statistics presented in a 2004 report from the American Federation of
Teachers show that the average low-income college student works 25 hours or more
each week. And, only 8% of low-income students graduate within five years.
Consequently, the AFT Report cautions that “rewarding or punishing colleges on the
basis of graduation or persistence rates creates a perverse incentive for them to stop
serving (low income) students who may have problems with persistence” (American
Federation of Teachers Report in U.S. Newswire via COMTEX, 2004, p. 2).
In addition, by establishing laws that use default rates to determine an
institution’s eligibility for student loan dollars, the federal government dissuades
institutions from serving low-income students. “Not surprisingly, students from low-
income families, who are often forced to borrow because of inadequate grant
assistance, are the most likely to default” (Dynarski in Tinto, p. 12). “Therefore
institutions of higher education have a disincentive to serve the neediest students, as
they risk their eligibility to participate in the student financial aid programs if too
many people default” (Tinto, p. 12).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
In the Donald Heller book, The States and Higher Education Policy. Chapter
9 is entitled The Call for Public Accountability: Rethinking the Linkages to Student
Outcomes. The authors of this chapter warn that “the use of accountability measures
as currently constructed in many states can erode equal opportunity” (St. John, Kline
& Asker in Heller, 2001, p. 219). Unfortunately, the authors proclaim that due to
tension and the new pressures for accountability, “underlying assumptions about the
goals of higher education were discarded in favor of indicators of quality not
sufficiently linked to social goals” (St. John, Kline & Asker in Heller, 2001, p. 220).
It is in this climate of debate over accessibility, affordability and
accountability that the next reauthorization will transpire. Scholars agree that access
to education should still be a prominent federal goal, primarily because the original
goal was never actualized (Heller, 2001; Wolanin, 2003). Despite efforts to increase
access to post secondary education, the percentage gap between low-income students
and high-income students is exactly the same as it was 30 years ago (Wolanin,
2003).
The report, Closing the College Participation Gap found that there is still an
economic and societal need “to raise the nation’s educational attainment levels and
ensure that all citizens who want a college education can obtain one.” However, “the
risk is that competing public priorities and shrinking resources will put access to an
affordable and high-quality education further out of the reach of most Americans.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
The participation gap that separates those with access to college from those without
threatens to widen” (Ruppert, 2003, p.l).
Unfortunately, as stated in an Education Digest article about Minority
College Access, “People are told that a college education is the only way to move up
economically in the future. That may be true, but policies are not being put in place
to realize it (Mitchum in Lewis, p.2) “The drive to increase college enrollment is so
badly under funded that the whole scene is rapidly making no sense. This is
especially true for minority/ low incomes students depending on public student aid
(Lewis, 2004, p.2)”
The Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act offers a compelling
opportunity to refocus efforts back towards the legislation’s original goals: access
and opportunity. As documented in the report Access Denied, issued by the
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, “Title IV programs, working
together, are well-tailored policy instruments for solving the access problem at each
stage of the education pipeline. If adequately funded, the programs can address each
of the factors that serve to frustrate college attendance, persistence, and degree
completion for low-income students” (Access Denied, 2001, p. 21).
Despite the changing trends of federal higher education policy, access is still
a viable goal that should be trumpeted. There is a great deal at stake during the
upcoming Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The debate between
education policy makers over the goals of accessibility, affordability and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
accountability will be played out in the upcoming reauthorization with the winners
granted the right to define the new HEA and consequently the tone of higher
education policy for the majority of the next decade.
Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act
The Higher Education Act calls for renewal every six years. Each
reauthorization process allows higher education professionals, Congress and the
United States Department of Education the opportunity to examine the strengths and
weaknesses of past legislation and ensure that programs are designed in accordance
with the priorities of the time period (Wolanin, 2003).
To renew the act, the Senate and the House must hold hearings in
Washington D.C. and seek input from legislators, policy makers, and advocacy
groups. After receiving input through hearings and public forums, both sides of
Congress must draft legislation on which they can agree. That draft is then sent to the
President for final approval. Once the law is signed, the U.S. Department of
Education is accountable for its administration (Lane, 2003). This will be the eighth
reauthorization of the HEA with previous reauthorizations occurring in 1968,1972,
1976,1980, 1986, 1992, and 1998.
The 1998 HEA expired September 30,2004. Due to conflicting priorities
and obligations at the federal level, no consensus for Reauthorization was reached
and the HEA was granted a one-year extension. This was the first time since the
inception of the HEA that the law was not reauthorized according to schedule
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
(Hartle, 2004). However, despite the fact that it was declared one of the top
legislative tasks of the 108th U.S. Congress, no one was surprised that the
reauthorization was postponed for at least one year.
A major factor hindering progress on the Bill was the 2004 presidential
election. Quoted in a May, 2004 issue of Community College Week, Paul Hassen,
assistant Director of Public Affairs at the American Council of Education, stated
“Hampering the renewal of the measure was the 2004 presidential race. It is hard to
imagine that you will see much action on such a major piece of legislation in the
middle of a presidential election” (Hassen in Boujard, 2004, p. 10).
Action on the bill was also stalled due to tight partisan committees in the
House and Senate. Partisan politics is new to this reauthorization. In a December
2004, Education Week article entitled “Congress Gets an Incomplete on Three
Major Education Bills” Becky Timmons, the director of government relations at the
American Council on Education stated, “The past history has been that this bill has
been remarkably bipartisan... but this time around there were very few staff meetings
that involved representatives from both parties” (Timmons in Honawar, 2004, p.33)
The Senate Health, Education Labor and Pensions Committee of the 108
Congress never even put forward a version of the new HEA before the law expired,
citing other priorities, including the election, and partisan politics. The official
Senate Reauthorization bill was scheduled for release in March 2004. However,
Chairman Senator Gregg was unable to get it out of committee within that timeline.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
Congressional insiders speculated that the Senate Chairman was holding off
until after the election to embark on any substantial discussions. In a Community
College Week article, “HEA Renewal Faces Roadblocks” Representative Cass
Ballenger, (R-NC) declared, “I’ve been here 20 years and I have never seen the
Senate so divided. Gregg might get the bill out of committee, but it will never get a
full vote on the Senate floor” (Ballenger in Boulard, 2004, p.3).
The House of Representatives made substantial progress with the College
Access and Opportunity Act (H.R. 4283), but Republican co-sponsors Buck McKeon
and John Boehner decided not to put the enti re bill forward for review because of the
fear of political recourse from a partisan House. As stated in a Chronicle of Higher
Education Article entitled “Congress Puts College Bill on Hold for This Year”, Rep.
McKeon said, “It would be unfair to force a vote on controversial aspects of the law
if the legislation had no chance of moving forward” (McKeon in Burd, 2004, p. Al).
However, without even having gone to the Floor for a vote, the College Access and
Opportunity Act managed to create a great deal of stir. According to the Republican
co-sponsors, the Bill promised to:
• Strengthen Pell Grants, student aid, student access and minority serving
institutions
• Reduce loan costs, fees and red tape for students and graduates
• Remove barriers for non-traditional students
• Empower consumers through “sunshine” and transparency in college costs
and accreditation (College Access and Opportunity Act, 2004).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
Unfortunately, critics of the bill felt that the provisions of the law which
would: recalculate the formula upon which need based aid was distributed; expand
Pell grant opportunities based on merit, not just need; increase the regulatory
functions of the federal government; and require schools to publish graduation and
persistence rates would do more to hurt access for low income students than it would
to expand it.
A particularly controversial provision of the bill would prohibit students’
ability to consolidate their variable rate student loans at a lower, fixed rate. The
rationale of this provision was that student loan companies that offer funding to low
income students are losing a great deal of money when students sell their portfolios
to companies that strictly handle consolidation loans. This practice has been
increasing in the last decade because of the rise of smaller loan consolidation
companies. The argument of McKeon and Boehner is that if these large student loan
companies, such as Sallie Mae, continue to lose money, they will not be able to
provide student loans to low income students in the future.
Many Democrats were particularly critical about this component. As stated in
the Community College Week article entitled “Congress’ Debate Deepens Over
Republican College Access Bill”, Representative George Miller, the ranking
Democrat on the House Education Committee said, “The Republican bill forces
millions of low and middle income students to pay thousands of dollars more for
their college loans” (Miller in Troumpoucis, 2004, p. 10), John Kerry, in his debates
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8 0
during the 2004 presidential campaign, also sharply criticized this component of the
bill.
However, McKeon and Boehner’s argument, and the premise upon which it
was based, was seriously called into question when it was announced that they had
received over $500,000 from Sallie Mae and other large student loan companies that
would directly benefit from the change in legislation. A Chronicle of Higher
Education investigation revealed that “officials with the loan industry and
proprietary institutions have given, individually and through political action
committee, or PAC’s, almost $1-million in campaign contributions to the 49
members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce” (Burd, 2004, p.
Al). This led proponents to question the viability of the plan and speculate that the
initiative was only driven by special interests and personal gain.
The College Access and Opportunity Act did have several provisions that
received bipartisan support. For example, even the most adamant critics supported
the bills’ intention to increase the amount of money that first and second year
students could borrow through federal loans. An attempt to reduce the fees
associated with those loans was also praised, as was the goal of increasing funding
for GEAR UP and TRIO. However, this support was not enough to override the
negative reactions to the bill.
Due to the controversial nature of the law, especially the challenges to
historically sacred cows, such as the expansion of the federal government’s role in
higher education and the distribution of Pell Grants, some Congressional observers
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
believe “the Republican House leadership would not allow the legislation to reach
the House floor, out of concern that it would give Democrats ammunition to use
against the White House and Republicans in Congress during an election year”
(Burd, 2004, p. Al).
Many policy analysts worried that by not completing the HEA, the Congress
was sending a message that they did not feel that higher education was a national
priority. However, many others were relieved that the College Access and
Opportunity Act was not signed last year. As Jamie P. Merisotis, the president of the
Institute for Higher Education Policy observed, “most of the debate around the
Higher Education Act has seemed to be about accountability rather than student
access to college. If the reauthorization would result in changes that would
negatively impact student access, it would be better not to reauthorize it” (Merisotis,
in Burd, 2004, p.Al).
Consequently, it is now up to the 109th Congress to tackle the eighth
Congressional reauthorization since the inception of the HEA is 1965. According to
the comprehensive report entitled Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act: Issues
and Options, produced by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (2003), this
reauthorization will be very different from those conducted in the past. As
highlighted in the study, the following factors serve to create the uniqueness of this
HEA reauthorization.
1.) There is not a concrete political agenda for higher education that is
currently dominating national concerns. “There has been no national commission
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8 2
report, no landmark study, no best-selling book painting a dramatic and persuasive
picture of the need to change the federal higher education policies embodied in the
HEA” (Wolanin, 2003, p. 2). “There is no public perception of a “crisis” in higher
education” (ibid.p.2). Neither the general public, nor key political officials are
placing a strong focus on the plight of higher education at this time. Consequently,
there will probably not be any sweeping new policies introduced in response to
public outcry (Wolanin, 2003). Nor will there be a high level of public scrutiny
about the decisions that are made.
2.) “National priorities other than higher education policy are clearly
dominating the national agenda” (ibid, p.3). These include the war on terrorism,
homeland security, the war in Iraq, heath care reform and the status of the economy
(Wolanin, 2003). In other words, there are conflicting priorities, other than higher
education, that are currently capturing the minds of the American population.
This message was reinforced in the Chronicle of Higher Education article
entitled “The Time to Reauthorize the Higher Education Act is Now”. According to
the author, Terry Hartle, a senior vice-president for government and public affairs at
the American Council on Education, the lack of attention to the HEA is indicative of
the nature of government, “Policy makers want to solve problems that capture media
attention” (Hartle, 2004, p.B20).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
3.) K-12 accountability issues and No Child Left Behind are dominating the
federal government’s interest in education. “To the extent that education is a federal
policy concern, elementary education and secondary education, not higher education
is the dominant concern” (Wolanin, p. 3). The Department of Education has focused
the majority of time and resources towards the No Child Left Behind Legislation,
which is far more controversial than ever expected and overshadows other education
priorities (Hartle, 2004).
4.) There is no money. Federal deficits are at an all time high with funding
for homeland security, health care and the war in Iraq continuing to rise. This will
have a dramatic impact on the reauthorization proceedings because there will not be
any funds to allocate. In fact, a component of the College Access and Opportunity
Act would require that the HEA be “cost-neutral.” In other words, any changes to
programming will have to be paid for through a cut to something else.
Legislators are still debating the merits of this proposition, with many
politicians voicing their concerns. For example, Representative George Miller from
California has said, “I find it rather interesting that when it comes to education, we
are in a budget neutral situation. We’re not in a budget neutral situation with the
military budget, the agriculture budget and the transportation budget. So they have
obviously decided that it is a higher priority to fund money for tax cuts and for all of
these other purposes” (Miller in Burd, 2004, p. A25). However, even if the HEA is
not officially “cost-neutral” financial realities will play a pivotal role.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
5.) For the first time in the history of the HEA, the reauthorization will take
place under a Republican president with a Republican controlled Congress. The
Democrats had complete authority in 1968 and 1980, but all other reauthorizations
were conducted under some level of split control (Wolanin, 2003). Unfortunately,
this reauthorization process is starting with tensions already high. The Republicans
have control, but the Democrats have been outspoken in their disagreements with
their Republican counterparts and the Bush administration.
As summed up by Terry Hartle, a senior vice-president for government and
public affairs at the American Council on Education, “Budget shortfalls, the lack or a
crisis, a limited time frame and political controversy are all enemies of legislative
action. Taken together, they could be insurmountable” (Hartle, 2004, p. B20).
In other words, in the best-case scenario, the outcomes of this reauthorization
will be very hard to predict. However, in the worst-case scenario, the outcomes of
the next HEA could spell disaster for higher education. There is a great deal at stake,
however the hearts and minds of the American public are elsewhere. Consequently,
powerful changes could be introduced without the awareness of those that will be
impacted, especially if the changes are packaged in the accountability or money
saving framework. As expressed by the Institute for Higher Education Policy, due to
the circumstances that surround this process,
The reauthorization may mark an incremental move in a negative direction,
by narrowing access to higher education or increasing regulatory burden.
Even small changes in the HEA can have major consequences for students,
institutions of higher education, or lenders... For example, changes in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
student loan programs that do not modify basic policies could cause shifts of
tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue among lenders or other loan
program players (Wolanin, 2003, p. 4).
Implications for GEAR UP and TRIO
Fortunately, early conversations about the HEA would seem to indicate good
news for both GEAR UP and TRIO. Testimonies given to the committees from
legislators and educators within the HEA process have included accolades for the
GEAR UP and TRIO programs and their ability to serve low-income students.
Both programs also received Congressional support in the 2005
Appropriations Cycle. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration does not share that
support. Despite the support of Congress, the White House recommended level
funding for the GEAR UP and TRIO programs. Luckily, Congress overrode those
recommendations and gave TRIO a 4% increase and GEAR UP an 11% gain. They
also gave both programs “Priority Program Status,” something that insiders think the
administration will fight in the reauthorization. TRIO professionals were particularly
disappointed by the funds allocated in the last appropriation cycles. The 4% increase
did not allow TRIO to fund all of the eligible programs that they were hoping to
serve.
However, in an interview conducted with a long-time political analyst, I
learned that it could have been dramatically worse for the TRIO programs. “TRIO is
lucky to receive anything at all. The administration does not support TRIO and in
my opinion would like to see them go away. However, the administration also
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
underestimated the strength of the minority lobby. The minority leadership came out
strong for TRIO and the administration had to back away from a political fight.
However, the administration has decided to go at TRIO from another
direction. They have just advocated for a series of comprehensive program audits of
the TRIO programs. They are going at them from the legal, bureaucratic direction. I
think that the administration plans to bog those programs down in paperwork, make
them so unattractive and burdensome for the recipients that the campuses will stop
seeking TRIO money” (Confidential personal communications, 12/21/04).
Unfortunately, the budget allocations for all of the HEA programs will only
get worse. The Chronicle of Higher Education article “The Time to Reauthorize the
HEA is Now”, stresses that the longer it takes to reauthorize the HEA, the more the
stakes might change. “With a $520 billion dollar estimated shortfall predicted for
next year, controlling spending has become the major goal of policy makers.
Increasing spending is simply not on the agenda” (Hartle, 2004, p. B20).
The government is already in deficit spending. The federal government’s
three highest appropriations are health, defense and education. With next year’s
budget looking even bleaker for both health and defense, that leaves only one place
to cut: education. The “No Child Left Behind” initiative is already criticized for a
lack of funding. President Bush campaigned on his pledge to increase funding for K-
12. There is no way to get the money needed for all of these conflicting priorities.
This leaves HEA programs incredibly vulnerable as time continues to pass.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
“Higher Education advocates don’t like the assumption, but it’s a fact of life.
With no additional money to spend, Congress is playing a zero-sum game. Any steps
to increase funding must come from spending cuts somewhere else” (Ibid. p. B20).
Unfortunately the combination of limited funds and increased accountability
will be particularly dangerous for both TRIO and GEAR UP. As stated by Paul
Gaston, Provost at Kent State University, in a Liberal Education article entitled “Ten
Lessons for Liberal Education”,
Since the adoption of the HEA in 1965, the stakes of Reauthorization
discussions have always been high. Because the HEA directs federal student
aid, its influence on what has been dubbed the three A’s (access,
affordability, and accountability) is considerable. From this influence arises
a single opportunity for political positioning. This time, moreover, we have
seen a familiar axiom confirmed, in that legislators with little additional
funding to allocate, compensate by proposing more intrusive policies
(Gaston, 2004, p. 54).
William Zumetta (2001) explains a similar phenomenon at the state level in
his writings about the changing relationship between the state government and higher
education. He contends that the accountability movement at the state level is often
driven by budget shortfalls. For example, in California, the largest recipients of state
funding are the prison system, health care and education. The first two variables
cannot be controlled. K-12 spending is also mandated.
However, financing for higher education can be restricted. In the last decade,
by claiming the need for increased accountability measures, politicians in California
have dramatically increased their role in higher education. However, Zumetta (2001)
questions the intentions of the accountability movement and speculates whether the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
increased intrusion of politics into higher education is really because it is the largest
area of spending that can be controlled in tough budget times. As Gaston (2004)
contends, legislators use the veil of accountability to rationalize difficult budget
decisions during tough economic times.
This message was reinforced through my interview with a federal policy
analyst who proclaimed, “The next HEA will be totally bound in politics. The new
Secretary of Education is totally focused on K-12, the economy is bad, war is
waging; the administration is looking not to spend money. They need to cut funding,
so they will find a way to do it. In my opinion, this whole accountability thing is to
save money by cutting programs that they really never intended to fund”
(Confidential personal communications, 12/21/04).
Unfortunately, if Congress needs to find an accountability argument to
rationalize cuts in the higher education budget, it can be easily found in both the
GEAR UP and TRIO programs. GEAR UP faced some challenges in the early years
of the program. Two years after the inception of GEAR UP, the Inspector General
launched an audit at 12 partnership programs throughout the United States. Many of
the partnerships were criticized for not spending the money as they had specified that
they would. The Hayward State University and Oakland Unified School District
Partnership were the worst offenders, failing to spend a fraction of their million-
dollar budget. This received extensive public criticism from the Inspector General’s
Office. However, in defense of the Hayward partnership, they self-reported their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
challenges before the Inspector General came to visit. Issues with other partnership
programs have also been resolved.
TRIO programs will also not go unscathed in an argument over
accountability. One area of concern for TRIO programs is the growing criticism of
the Prior Experience points that they give to existing programs during proposal
competitions. This makes it extremely difficult for new institutions to ever receive a
TRIO grant. Dr. Mitchum contends, however, that Prior Experience Points are an
essential accountability tool to ensure that current grantees use their grants wisely.
Additional concerns have arisen as a result of the Federal PART
Assessments, as discussed in Chapter 2, which criticized both GEAR UP and TRIO
for insufficient evaluation procedures and a lack of demonstrated results.
Upward Bound, however, has received additional scrutiny, particularly from the
Bush Administration. In 1999, an educational consulting company named
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc, reviewed the Upward Bound program and issued
harshly worded results.
According to the study. Upward Bound “had no impact on students’ in
school behavior, participation in extracurricular activities, grade-point average, or
credits earned in subjects such as English or Science. Furthermore, Upward Bound
had no impact on high school graduation and no impact on the chances for students
to attend college” (Mathematica Study, in Morgan & Brainard, 2002, p.A 21).
In actuality, there are conflicting opinions about the studies and evaluative
reports used to decry the TRIO and GEAR UP programs. According to the Institute
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
of Higher Education Policy’s publication, HEA: Reauthorizing the Higher Education
Act, Issues and Options, the evaluations that are being sited to condemn the Title IV
programs are not methodologically sound.
Because of their non-longitudinal focus, the evaluations offer imperfect
snapshots of these programs. The evaluators had difficulty measuring
program effectiveness because of differences in target populations, program
design and data collection processes. Evaluations have not provided a clear
portrait of the strengths and weaknesses of the TRIO programs, or more
importantly how they can be improved. With respect to GEAR UP, the
program has been is existence for a short time, and it is too early to evaluate
it (Wolanin, 2003, p. 16-17).
I agree with Institute of Higher Education Policy. I find that the arguments
that have been used against GEAR UP and TRIO are methodologically flawed. I also
trust the conflicting opinions of the educational professionals that have documented
the impacts of the GEAR UP and TRIO programs. Indeed, the federal government’s
own PART assessments did find that Upward Bound significantly impacted low-
income students with additional at-risk characteristics. However, these evaluations
do make both GEAR UP and TRIO incredibly vulnerable if Congress is looking for a
reason to make the unpopular budget cuts that they will undoubtedly have to make in
this budget climate.
Both GEAR UP and TRIO have more than proved themselves with the
quality work that they do to empower students and families. At the moment, the
Republican controlled Congress is a strong advocate for both TRIO and GEAR UP.
However, the current administration is not. In the past two appropriations cycles,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
Bush has not recommended an increase for TRIO programs, while citing poor
evaluations and lack of documented results as the reason for his recommendations.
In addition, as written in the Chronicle of Higher Education Article, “Upward
Bound’s Slippery Slope”, “The administration has taken the unusual step of
highlighting what it views as TRIO’s weakest link, Upward Bound” (Morgan &
Brainard, 2002, p.A21). Whether or not a Republican controlled Congress will have
the power or the motivation to vote in opposition to the desires of the Bush
administration has yet to be seen.
However, GEAR UP and TRIO must also recognize that in the following
months, the federal government is going to have to cut finances somewhere. The
issue of whether or not the programs can effectively work together is already up for
discussion by important legislators. GEAR UP and TRIO must proactively work
together to dispel any contention that they are redundant and/or unable to provide the
services that they pledge to bestow. GEAR UP and TRIO must be beyond reproach;
otherwise they will allow themselves to be easy targets in a growingly tumultuous
climate. Consequently, it is in the best interest of both of the programs to minimize
any negative publicity.
The contentious political climate demands that GEAR UP and TRIO rally
together so that the HEA can continue to champion opportunity and access to the
fullest extent. In other words, it is time to redirect the fight between TRIO and
GEAR UP. Instead of focusing on each other, all of that energy must be focused
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
toward ensuring that both programs have the resources that they need to continue
serving educationally disadvantaged students. Unfortunately, if this fight continues
to be directed at each other, then the fate of GEAR UP and TRIO, along with their
histories and success to date, and the ideals from which they were created, will all be
at risk.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
Chapter 5: Summary, Discussion and Recommendations
At the close of 2004, the 108th Congress wrapped up with little fanfare.
Overshadowed by the national election, war in Iraq, and national budget woes, the
108th Congress ended its year with many things unresolved - including the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
Fortunately, in Washington D.C. at about that same time, one important
matter was moving toward resolution. The Council for Opportunity in Education
(COE) and the National Council for Community and Education Partnerships
(NCCEP), the support programs for TRIO and GEAR UP, were meeting to discuss
the realities of the current budget and political climate and determine better ways of
getting along. These meetings were structured to ensure that both NCCEP and COE
were well positioned to advocate for their programs in the upcoming reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act.
When the Higher Education Act was signed into law in 1965, its purpose was
to ensure that all Americans had the right to pursue a higher education. The law
marked a distinct change in the federal government’s role in education and dictated
the mandate that access for all was a benefit not only to individuals but to the
country as a whole. In the last 40 years, significant effort has been made to ensure
increased access to higher education. Great strides have been made to equal the
playing field that dictates who can obtain a college degree. However, true access, as
defined by Johnson four decades ago, has still eluded us.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
As another HEA sunsets, access seems more elusive than ever. In this year’s
Reauthorization, access is not being encouraged, but threatened, with accountability
taking the higher priority. The College Opportunity and Access Act, co-sponsored by
Congressmen McKeon and Boehner as the House’s first attempt at the new HEA, is
riddled with messages that indicate that the federal role in education is changing
once again.
For example, no longer only referring to low-income students, the bill now
specifically recognizes the middle class as part of its focus. Also of concern are the
provisions that would change the eligibility for Pell Grants from income criteria to
merit and the movement to prevent students from consolidating their student loans.
Tax cuts for tuition and new accountability measures that would punish schools that
do not meet graduation and transfer targets are also not based on the needs of the low
income. Combine these shifts with trends occurring at the national level, including
record budget deficits, the administration’s focus on K-12 and the war in Iraq, and
authorities on access to higher education are becoming increasingly concerned.
GEAR UP and TRIO professionals, and the leaders of NCCEP and COE, are
no exception. These professionals know that their programs are increasingly
vulnerable as we enter into the upcoming reauthorization. Limited funds, changing
priorities and an administration that has voiced discontent with both programs, have
added to the anxiety of COE and NCCEP. In response, over the last several months,
these programs have been working hard to better position themselves in preparation
for the battle over access that is set to ensue.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
GEAR UP and TRIO were created to serve low-income youth on their path to
post secondary education. While similar in scope, the programs are very different in
their structure and in the breadth of their services. TRIO programs intensively serve
individuals that meet the criteria of low income and first generational education
status. GEAR UP serves entire schools with a free and reduced lunch rate of 50% or
more. While offering services directly to students, GEAR UP also focuses on
broader systemic changes including teacher development and curriculum
articulation.
Both GEAR UP and TRIO have received accolades for their efforts to serve
students and communities. Both are respected by educational professionals in the
field for their ability to deliver information and services. The programs’ abilities to
address the cultural and societal factors that prevent students from achieving their
educational dreams have also been recognized as a national best practice. GEAR UP
and TRIO can also be applauded for their program designs, which both adhere
closely to educational research on effective practices for improving post secondary
education rates for non-traditional students (Choy, 2002).
Unfortunately, GEAR UP and TRIO are not as effective as they could be, or
more importantly, as they need to be. Ironically, the voices of these two access
programs are being overshadowed by their turbulent history and their inability to get
along. As part of this research process, I now have a deeper understanding of the
reasons NCCEP and COE don’t always see eye to eye. Whereas their missions to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
develop and support programs that increase access for low income students are very
similar, their approaches to this mission are very unique.
For the last several months, I have immersed myself in research, speaking
with many GEAR UP and TRIO program directors and with COE and NCCEP
professionals. I have found that GEAR UP and TRIO are both extremely effective
at serving low-income students and families and truly make a difference in the lives
of the students that they serve. COE and NCCEP have also proven their abilities as
effective lobbyists, each with substantial political strength. However, the paths they
have chosen to achieve that strength are completely different.
COE has a much more aggressive approach to political lobbying. This has
resulted in an increasingly antagonistic relationship between COE and the Bush
administration. COE has also been criticized for their relentless protection of “Prior
Experience Points”, a controversial policy that gives extra points to experienced
TRIO programs in grant competitions. This has earned them criticism within
Washington D.C. for being narrowly focused and self-serving. COE also has many
vocal staff members, and sometimes the messages from within the COE ranks can be
conflicting.
On the other hand, NCCEP has continually trumpeted the call for coalition
building and unification. NCCEP was proactive in ending the GEAR UP - TRIO
battles, both behind the scenes and in public. Since July, whenever I have read or
heard a quote by an NCCEP staff member, the message has been consistent, “We
believe that both programs are worthy and unique and necessary to serve low-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
incomes students.” In fact, at one point, I asked a vice-president of NCCEP if the
consistent message was deliberate or just coincidence. He said, “No, it is deliberate.
NCCEP has a strategic plan for GEAR UP that includes an educational framework
and a political action plan. We follow both” (Confidential personal communications,
September 9,2004).
In addition, when NCCEP is confronted with criticisms, such as results from
an evaluation study, Hector Garza, the Director of NCCEP, releases a statement
about improvement plans. COE is more likely to challenge the methodology of the
study. When the July 26th notice came out that TRIO would be cut in the 2006
budget, NCCEP immediately spoke out in support of the Talent Search and Upward
Bound Programs. At that point, NCCEP was not aware that GEAR UP was also on
the chopping block. Had the situation been reversed, I am not sure if COE would
have spoken out for GEAR UP.
Their communication styles are another way in which COE and NCCEP
differ. Unlike COE, who gets criticized for being too forthcoming in defense of their
own programs, NCCEP gets criticized for being too restrained. Their decision to not
take a stand on the changing criteria for Pell Grants, which drew frustration from
educational colleagues, was just one example.
Whereas it is understandable that the differing cultures of these two
organizations might lead to disagreement, in the climate mentioned above, it is not
acceptable. These are exceptional programs; the combined powers of both are
needed to lead the fight to preserve access in the most crucial piece of higher
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
education policy that will be decided this decade. As evidenced through the
interviews presented in Chapter 3, many GEAR UP and TRIO professionals shared
this sentiment, calling for an end to the COE/NCCEP infighting.
In January 2005, COE and NCCEP finally answered the plea of practitioners
in the field, putting together a joint press release that advocated for each program and
called for increased funding for both GEAR UP and TRIO. When I asked COE and
NCCEP officials what prompted the reconciliation, both referred to the changing
political climate at the federal level and the increased need for coalition building.
Both felt that the tumultuous federal budget and lack of support from the Bush
administration made it clear that GEAR UP and TRIO needed to reconcile and join
forces. As stated by an access professional that has worked with both GEAR UP and
TRIO, “We are crazy to fall victim to this in-fighting. We have to be united. We
have the opportunity to make a difference” (Confidential personal communication,
12/21/05).
Summary of Study
This dissertation was written out of a fear that the infighting that surrounds
the GEAR UP and TRIO programs would eventually hurt both programs and hinder
the philosophy of access upon which the programs were built. The purpose of this
study was to present a clear case for COE and NCCEP that outlines the urgency of
the political circumstances surrounding the HEA and to encourage the two programs
to join together with a common lobbying strategy that advocates for their role in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
serving low income students, and also advocates for the philosophy of broad
educational access for all.
To carry out this goal, the study also presented an overview of the HEA
including an exploration of the dominant trends that have dictated higher education
policy in the past with predictions for the future. The status of post-secondary access
in the United States today was also discussed with the greatest threats to access being
highlighted.
The following six themes were explored throughout the document. Each
theme was supported through the available literature and through the reinforcement
of educational practitioners currently working with GEAR UP and TRIO and/or
working in the field of educational access. In review, these themes, which were
presented in Chapter 1, include the following:
Theme 1: The Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is taking place
in an increasingly complex political and economic climate.
As detailed in Chapter 4, there are numerous events taking place nationally
and internationally that will dramatically affect the outcomes of this reauthorization
process. As highlighted by the Institute to Higher Education Policy (Wolanin, 2003)
these factors include: conflicting national priorities, including rising costs for
homeland security and defense; partisan leanings in the House and Congress; limited
funds in the budget coffers; the threat of a cost-neutral reauthorization; an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
administration squarely focused on K-12 issues; and a lack of perceived urgency
towards higher education in the hearts and minds of the American people.
Without the threat of intense public scrutiny during the reauthorization,
policy experts fear that incremental but dramatic changes will be made to the next
HEA without much fanfare. These changes have the potential to negatively affect
the services and programs offered through the bill, with the hardest impact being felt
by our most vulnerable populations.
Theme 2: The focus of the next HEA has moved away from the traditional
theme of Access for the low-income student and more toward programmatic
accountability.
George Bush has made it clear that under his administration, accountability is
the cornerstone of educational policy (Peterson and West, 2002). Accountability is
definitely an important priority. We owe it to the students and communities we serve
to continuously improve our programs and processes and to strive for perfection in
what we do.
Unfortunately, past attempts to set accountability measures for higher
education have generally proved evasive (Heller, 2001). In addition, accountability
measures suggested in the College Access and Opportunity Act, which tie funding to
graduation and persistence rates and include new regulations guiding accreditation
and reporting requirements, have raised concerns that Bush’s definition of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
accountability will negatively impact low income students and hurt the institutions
that are attempting to serve the most vulnerable populations.
A focus on accountability also raises a measure of concern for both GEAR
UP and TRIO, who, despite their positive reputations in the field, have not fared well
on federal program evaluations. Although many educational professionals have
disputed the methodologies of the studies that yielded the negative results (Wolanin,
2003), these reports have still left both programs vulnerable in the new age of
accountability.
Theme 3: GEAR UP and TRIO provide effective interventions for serving
low-income students and effectively actualize the goals set forth in Title IV
of the Higher Education Act
Significant research has been produced that documents successful practices
for improving post secondary education success for low-income and marginalized
students. Access to rigorous coursework, awareness of college options,
understanding of financial aid, college workshops for parents, taking steps to enroll
in college and having support along the way (Choy, 2002) have all proven to equal
the playing field for low income students in pursuit of a college degree. GEAR UP
and TRIO each have program designs that are firmly in line with the educational
research. School reform experts also affirm GEAR UP program components that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
focus on data driven decision-making, professional development and systematic
reform.
Theme 4: The tumultuous relationship between GEAR UP and TRIO has
distracted their focus from the broader issues.
Chapter 3 highlights the contentious history of the GEAR UP and TRIO
programs with a specific focus on the bad blood between COE and NCCEP. As
indicated through document review and news media, a substantial portion of the
attention received by these programs has been directed toward their conflict and not
toward the exceptional work they do to serve low-income children and their families.
GEAR UP and TRIO professionals, who have expressed concern that the ongoing
feud between the two programs has diminished the capability of both programs to
reach their own potential, also share this sentiment.
Politicians have also noticed the discontent. As detailed in Chapter 3,
members of the House and Senate have directly inquired about the nature of the
conflict and expressed their concerns about the on-going negative relationship
between COE and NCCEP (Garza, 2004). In addition, a 2002 report from the
Congressional Research Service entitled Higher Education Act: Reauthorization
Status and Issues, announced that, “At issue for the Congress is whether the current
HEA programs adequately promote the traditional HEA goal of expanding access to
postsecondary education for disadvantaged individuals” (Stedman, 2002, p. 6). In
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
addition, Congress has posed the specific question of “whether the current support
services programs- TRIO and GEAR UP- are adequate to their task and whether they
may be excessively and inefficiently duplicative of each other” (ibid. p. 7).
Theme 5: The conflict must be resolved so that GEAR UP and TRIO can
focus their efforts on serving educational disadvantaged schools and
students, especially in light of the upcoming Reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act.
As articulated by educational access professional Ann Coles, “It’s not healthy
for these programs to be competing against each other. Even with both programs,
we’re barely scratching the surface of the kids we could be helping” (Coles in Burd,
2003, p. A21).
The conflict between NCCEP and COE reached a boiling point in the
summer of 2004. In M y 2004, Hector Garza called for the reconciliation of the two
programs and COE agreed. Since then, the two agencies have been meeting regularly
to resolve the issues that have led to the interagency fighting. The urgency of the
political climate has spurred the conversations, and much to the gratitude of
educational practitioners, both NCCEP and COE have responded positively and
appropriately.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
Theme 6: A common platform that would unite the two programs with a
common lobbying strategy that is supportive of GEAR UP and TRIO and
clearly articulates the similarities and differences of each entity, would
ultimately help both programs and is needed to support the principals of
access on which each program is based.
At the inception of this research project, this was my ultimate goal. My
contention was that NCCEP and COE needed to put their differences aside to
advocate for the broader goal of access for low-income students. It was obvious to
me that the ongoing discontent between COE and NCCEP was detrimental to the
GEAR UP and TRIO programs. However, in such a challenging political climate,
the feud took on broader significance with greater matters at stake than just the
programs themselves.
The joint press release issued by COE and NCCEP on January 17,2005 was
the first step toward overcoming past discontent and creating a united front to
politicians, lobbyists and educational practitioners. The press release was cause for
celebration at both COE and NCCEP. GEAR UP and TRIO professionals who were
aware of the pending publication were elated as well. Unfortunately, that press
release never made it to the general public. The message was stopped short by the
shocking revelation that the reconciliation between GEAR UP and TRIO might have
been too little, too late.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
Discussions
A premise of this dissertation has been that the political, ideological, and
economical climate of today poses great threats not only to both the GEAR UP and
TRIO programs but also to the broader goal of post secondary access for low-income
students. Regrettably, my premise was correct.
The harsh realities of the changing federal climate came to fruition when, on
February 7,2005, Bush released his 2006 budget with the recommendation that the
Upward Bound, Talent Search and GEAR UP programs be completely eliminated.
This came as a shock to members of the educational community. Talent Search and
Upward Bound have been effectively serving high school students since the 1960’s.
GEAR UP, though only in existence since 1998, has increasingly proved itself to be
the shining star of the HEA access programs.
Only three months before, Congress had recommended the increase of
funding to both programs and designated both TRIO and GEAR UP as Priority
Programs under the HEA. Consequently, Bush’s suggestion to completely eliminate
two of TRIO’s vanguard programs and the very popular GEAR UP program was
completely unexpected.
As predicted in Chapter 4, Bush blamed accountability issues for the cuts that
he made to the education programs. As stated by George Bush at the first Cabinet
meeting of his second term, “The taxpayers of America don’t want us spending our
money unless something’s about achieving results” (Bush, in Westphal, 2005, p.
A6). To reporters he said, “I fully understand that sometimes it’s hard to eliminate a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
program that sounds good. But, by getting people to focus on results, I’m saying to
members of Congress, show us the results as to whether or not this program is
working” (Bush, in Westphal, Sacramento Bee, 2005, p. A6).
The response from the educational community was immediate. Hector
Garza, the president of NCCEP, released an uncharacteristically sharp statement
which said, “How ironic that just five days ago this President spoke of the need to
‘prepare a rising generation to fill the jobs of the 21rst century’ and yet, this morning
he has sought to eliminate one of the most successful education programs at doing
just that. The hypocrisy and hardness of heart shown in this budget is staggering”
(NCCEP Press release, February 7,2005, p.l).
Arnold Mitchem, the President of COE, referred to Bush’s use of
accountability to attack the Upward Bound and Talent Search as “pseudo-science”.
In the Chronicle of Higher Education Article, “Bush’s Budget for 2006 May Propose
Killing Two Key Programs for College Access”, Mitchem says, “It constitutes little
more than scientific smokescreen to cover up the president’s political agenda. The
president wants a new program, and he has to pay for it somehow” (Mitchem in
Kelly, 2005, p.3).
The program to which Mitchem is referring is Bush’s new High School
Intervention Initiative. Bush has proposed a new plan to improve our nation’s high
schools, through “an accountability framework” which will utilize an array of
intervention strategies to better serve at-risk students (White House Press Release,
2/7/05). In essence, the initiative would increase resources to our nation’s high
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
schools so they can provide more training on college access, academic interventions,
and encourage all youth to tackle a rigorous curriculum. However, it will be up to
each state to choose the intervention strategies that they feel would be the most
helpful for their individual needs. The accountability focus and the states’
involvement in developing their own interventions and program design are
reminiscent of the “No Child Left Behind Act” released in 2001.
On paper, this sounds like a good plan. As identified in Chapter 2, research
has shown that many pre-college access programs, such as GEAR UP and TRIO, are
in existence because of deficit educational models (Gullat and Jan, 2004). That is,
they have been created to accommodate students who, through no fault of their own,
are not receiving the services, curriculum and/or counseling they need to understand
and access their collegiate options simply because of the schools they attend.
Bush’s plan to address the deficit high school model is technically sound.
However, the $450 million dollars that will be saved by cutting TRIO and the $305
million saved through cuts to GEAR UP will not touch the $1.5 billion price tag
needed to run his new high school initiative. In addition, if the “No Child Left
Behind Act” is any indication, any attempts at high school reforms will not be
actualized for several years to come. The program design of the high school
initiative still needs to be completed and accepted by Congress. Funds need to be
allocated and personnel need to be identified and trained. In the meantime, there will
be no help whatsoever for low-income students, and GEAR UP and TRIO’s
momentum and headway will be totally lost.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
Chapter 4 spoke about the President’s alliance to K-12 issues. The proposed
2006 budget reflects this priority. The fact that it provides additional funding for the
No Child Left Behind Act was expected. The fact that it expands allocations and
focus to the high schools should not be a complete surprise. However, the decision
to completely divert funding from college access programs to accomplish his new
goals did catch many off guard, including COE and NCCEP.
However, by no means is the fight over. Congress has the ultimate authority
and control over the United States budget. Despite a Republican controlled House
and Senate, experts predict that the proposal to cut GEAR UP and TRIO will receive
a great deal of resistance from prominent politicians and political lobbying groups.
Bush has underestimated the minority lobby before, especially when it comes to
TRIO programs. There are now several past TRIO participants who hold seats in the
Congress and the House, and their loyalty for the Talent Search and Upward Bound
programs is very strong.
Democrats have historically supported TRIO, but they are not alone.
Republicans Henry Bonilla of Texas, a former Talent Search participant, and Illena
Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, two House of Representative delegates from states that
have great influence in the Bush administration, are adamant in their support of
TRIO (Kelly, 2005).
The GEAR UP program also enjoys broad bipartisan support. Their
alignment with No Child Left Behind and their attempts to implement comprehensive
evaluation policies earned them an increasingly positive reputation with the Bush
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
Administration. GEAR UP also has broad bipartisan support and a proven ability to
close the achievement gap while providing essential services to schools and
communities.
In a press release circulated by NCCEP, Hector Garza cited the incredible
results demonstrated by GEAR UP schools across the United States on issues such as
school performance, drop out rates, and student achievement (NCCEP Press Release,
2/7/04). My own experience with GEAR UP mirrors these results. In the rural school
where I have been administering a GEAR UP program, the API went up over 100
points over a two-year period. There was also a 30% increase in the amount of
seniors who enrolled in post secondary education.
Talent Search and Upward Bound have a long, successful history and loyal
supporters. GEAR UP has had impressive successes in the short time that it has been
in existence. As politicians and educational experts become increasingly wary of
continuing the revolving door of educational programs, replacing these programs
with yet another educational program is short sited. According to the Institute on
Higher Education Policy, “One continuing problem is the constant succession of new
programs in each HEA reauthorization, almost none of which are given adequate
time or resources to demonstrate their value. Continually uprooting the current
programs and replacing them with yet another configuration of initiatives aimed
largely at dealing with the same issues are unlikely to produce a more satisfactory
result” (Wolanin, 2003, p. 28).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
Consequently, I do not feel that Bush’s attempts to dismantle both programs
will actually come through to fruition. He might succeed in making broad cuts, but
complete elimination does not seem possible, especially if COE and NCCEP remain
united and do not self-destruct. This remains to be seen.
The diverse styles of the NCCEP and COE programs make them strange
bedfellows. However, in this climate, their ability to come together with a unified
front is paramount. NCCEP and COE have been working hard to reconcile their
differences. The impetus for the reconciliation was the pending fight for program
sustainability and for educational access for low-income students. As evidenced by
the release of George Bush’s 2006 budget, that fight has officially arrived.
Unfortunately, the release of Bush budget has implications beyond GEAR UP
and TRIO. The cut to these programs, in conjunction with the overwhelming
increase to K-12 affairs, does not bode well for higher education policy. The budget
could be just a diversion, with the true fight for access erupting in the upcoming
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
The 2006 budget cuts to GEAR UP and TRIO definitely take away their
positions of power in negotiations over the next HEA. COE and NCCEP were
preparing their political strategies for the reauthorization which included advocacy
for the importance of access for low-income students, legislative changes to GEAR
UP and a plea for increased funding for both programs. That momentum and
influence is now lost as they re-direct their energies from growth to survival.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
Recommendation #1
The Pathways to College Network is an alliance of national organizations and
funders that was created in 2001 to champion research based initiatives that improve
college access and success for students from low-income families. In a paper
released by the alliance entitled A Shared Agenda: A Leadership Challenge to
Improve College Access and Success, the Network emphasizes the importance of
comprehensive coalition building, which unites all of the stakeholders involved in
increasing access to post secondary education “so that we can make significant
strides toward implementing the shared agenda that we have developed” (2004, p.
34). It also stresses the use of partnerships and the sharing of resources to succeed in
“creating a chain of direct links to effect institutional and public policy change”
(ibid.).
Ironically, two of the prominent members of the Pathways to College
Network are COE and NCCEP. Consequently, the first and most important
recommendation from this dissertation is that COE and NCCEP take their own
advice. It is essential that the two programs remain vocal and united and continue to
build on their progress. They must not let the lack of resources fuel the divide-and-
conquer strategy that once pitted the programs against each other.
It is essential that NCCEP and COE abandon their own self-interests and
inhibitions for the larger goal. What good is the GEAR UP program if low-income
students are unable to access the Pell grants they need to actually attend college?
Prior experience points won’t matter if all TRIO programs are discontinued!
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
Together, NCCEP and COE will be a powerful lobbying force. This will ultimately
help GEAR UP and TRIO and the philosophy of access upon which the programs are
based. If they allow themselves to be divided, then all will be at greater risk.
Recommendation #2
The Januaiy 2005 NCCEP/ COE joint press release was an excellent first step
in what is bound to be long political journey. The press release did not address the
turbulent history of the GEAR UP and TRIO programs. It simply stated the
importance of both programs and requested that each receive additional funding. In
other words, the fact that COE and NCCEP worked together to create the press
release was revolutionary; the message of the press release was not.
However, the conflict between GEAR UP and TRIO is now so well known
that a press release that does not address past relationship issues does not seem
completely sincere. My second recommendation is a joint press conference that
explicitly tells stakeholders that GEAR UP and TRIO, and consequently COE and
NCCEP, are on the same page and ready to fight. This will go a long way in re-
earning the trust of politicians who have expressed concern about the two programs’
inability to get along. It will also rally practitioners from the field to actively support
both programs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
Recommendation #3
In 1965, Truman set forth a mandate that proclaimed that
It is the responsibility of the community, at the local, state and national
levels, to guarantee that financial barriers do not prevent any able and
otherwise qualified young person from receiving the opportunity for higher
education. There must be developed in this country the widespread
realization that money expended for education in the wisest and soundest of
investments in the national interest. The democratic community cannot
tolerate a society based on education for the well to do alone (President’s
Commission on Higher Education, 1947, volume 2, p.23).
GEAR UP and TRIO embody the philosophy of this passage. The GEAR UP
and TRIO programs are designed to encourage low-income youth to overcome
educational and economic barriers, step out of their past circumstances and strive for
the futures that they desire. In spite of the administration’s comments to the contrary,
GEAR UP and TRIO have proven their ability to serve low-income students and
their families. They are well respected by the students they serve, practitioners who
run these programs, and by educational experts in the field.
However, if the 2006 budget, the changing trends of education policy at the
federal level and the focus of the next HEA are any indication, this un-fulfilled
dream has reached a crossroads. We are looking for leaders; we are looking to
GEAR UP and TRIO and we recognize that the stakes are high. Truman’s charge has
never been so urgent.
Consequently, my third recommendation is that COE and NCCEP take a
lesson from the students they have served. Millions of low-income students have
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
addressed and overcome their barriers as a result of these programs. Just like the
students they serve, GEAR UP and TRIO are not tied to the circumstances of the
past; with support and hard work they can overcome all barriers and strive for the
future that we all need.
Future Research
Action Research is intended to improve educational practice. At the
conclusion of this study, the future of the GEAR UP and TRIO programs is currently
unknown. Although my intent has been to positively impact the GEAR UP and
TRIO programs in their attempts to reconcile so that they continue their work
promoting access for low-income students, the broader outcomes of the project are
yet to be seen.
As mentioned above, throughout the study, I grew increasingly impressed
with the educational and political strategic plan developed by NCCEP to advance the
goals of the GEAR UP program. Whereas I was saddened and disappointed with the
plan to eliminate TRIO, based on the political decisions of COE, I was not that
astonished. The elimination of GEAR UP, however, took me completely by
surprise. In my opinion, NCCEP was doing everything right. The educational
framework of the program, combined with the political savvy of the NCCEP leaders,
seemed like a winning combination that was beyond reproach.
Consequently, a future research project that seems pertinent to the changing
political climate in which we live is an examination of programs that do survive.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
This study would explore the following questions: What combination of
educational, political, and bipartisan support is required to actually succeed in the
school reform arena? What are the factors for those that succeed: the people
involved? the timing? the political strength?
This study would allow us to learn from the successes and failures of others.
It could provide advice about best practices and cast light on what to avoid.
Consequently, it would be very pertinent to any educational professional that would
like to be a part of comprehensive school reform. Unfortunately, in the political
climate of the new millennium, with homeland security, partisan politics and limited
budgets, the study would probably follow a course similar to the one I just
completed; it would become another fascinating story with the potential for a very
sad ending.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
REFERENCES:
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. (2001). Access Denied:
Restoring the Nation’ s Commitment to Equal Educational Opportunity.
Washington, DC: Retrieved August 20,2004 from the World Wide Web:
www.ed. gov/ACSFA.
(2004). A Shared Agenda, A Leadership Challenge to Improve College Access
and Success, Pathways to College Network. Retrieved September 12,2004
from the World Wide Web:
http://www.pathwavstocollege.net/pdfrsharedagenda.pdf
Boulard, G. (2004, March 15). HEA renewal faces roadblocks. Community College
Week. Washington, D.C.
Breneman, D. (2001). Foreword. In D.E. Heller (Ed.), The States and Public Higher
Education Policy. Baltimore. MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Burd, S. (2004, July 7) Congress puts college bill on hold this year. Chronicle of
Higher Education. Vol. 50, Issue 43, p.lA.
Burd, S. (2004, May 21) House members argue over ‘budget neutral’ higher
education bill. Chronicle of Higher Education. Vol. 50, Issue 37, p. A25.
Burd, S. (2003, March 14). Programs for disadvantaged students feud over their
futures. Chronicle of Higher Education. Vol. 49, Issue 27, p. A21.
Cabrera, A.F., S. M. La Nasa, and K.R. Burkum. (2001). On the Right Path: The
Higher Education Story of One Generation. Center for the Study of Higher
Education, The Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA.
Cahalan, M. & Curtin, T. (2004) A Profile o f the Upward Bound Program: 2000-
2001. US Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education:
Washington D.C.
Callan, P. (2001). Reframing access and opportunity : Problematic state and higher
education policy in the 1990’s. In D.E. Heller (Ed.), The States and Public
Higher Education Policy. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Choy, Susan (2002) Access and Persistence: Findings from 10 Years o f Longitudinal
Research on Students. American Council on Education, Washington D.C.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
Clark, R. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results. Atlanta, GA: CEP
Press.
Committee on Education and the Workplace (2004). Hearing on H.R. 4283, the
College Access and Opportunity Act. Washington D.C: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Committee on Education and the Workplace (2004). Witnesses Urge Congress to
Address Higher Education Gap to Hold More Institutions Accountable.
Washington D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office.
College Board (2003). Challenging Times, Clear Choices: An action agenda for
college access and success. Pathways to College Network. Retrieved from
the World Wide Web on November 11,2004: www.collegeboard.com.
Council for Opportunity in Education (2003). GEAR UP and TRIO; Similar goals
contrasting policies and programs. Washington, D.C: Author
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2n d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Field, K. (2005, January 24). Bush’s budget for 2006 may propose killing two key
programs for college access. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
the World Wide Web January 24,2005: http://chronicle.com
Fields, C. (2001, December). Can TRIO and GEAR UP continue to coexist? Black
Issues in Higher Education. Vol. 18, Issue 21, pp 26-31.
Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R, & Gall, J.P. (1996). Educational research: an
introduction (6th ed). White plains, NY: Longman Publishers.
Gaston, P. (2004, Spring). Ten lessons for liberal education regarding the higher
education act reauthorization. Liberal Education, pp 54-59.
Hartle, T. (2004, May 21). The time to reauthorize the higher education act is now.
Chronicle of Higher Education. Vol. 50, Issue 37, p. B20.
Hauptman, A, (2001). Reforming ways in which states finance higher education.
In D.E. Heller (Ed.), The States and Public Higher Education Policy.
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
Heller, D. (2001). The states and public higher education policy: Accessibility,
affordability, and accountability. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Hess, F. & Kelly, A. (2004). Education and the 2004 Presidential Contest.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved
December 7,2004 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.21367.
Higher Education Act (1965): Section 404A and 404E
Higher Education Act (1998): Section 402A(c)(4)(B)
Honawar, V. (2004, December 1). Congress gets an incomplete on 3 major
education bills Education Week. Vol. 24, Issue 14, p.32.
Horwitz, J. (2004, March 5.) AFT report calls administration proposal for higher
education a “wrong turn”. Community Custom Wire. Retrieved August 20,
2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.search.ennet.com.
Lane, K. (2003, September 25). On the road to reauthorization. Black Issues in
Higher Education. Vol 20, Issue 16, pp 6-10.
Lewis, Anne (2004, April). Minority college access, Education Digest. Vol.69. Issue
8, p.68,2p
McClafferty, K., McDonough, P., Nunez, A. (2002) What is College Culture?
Facilitating College Preparation through Organizational Change. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved January 12,2005 from the World
Wide Web: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/facultv/pages/mcclaffertv.html
Monica, M. & Klopott, S. (2003) Improving College Access for Minority, Low-
income, and First Generation Students. Institute for Educational Leadership
and the National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.
Pathways to College Network, Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in
Education. Washington D.C.
Morgan, R. and Brainard, J. (2002, May 3) Upward bound’s slippery slope,
Chronicle of Higher Education. Volume 48, Issue 34, p. A21.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
Peterson, P. & West, M. (2002). No child left behind? The politics o f school
accountability, Washington D.C: Brookings Institution Press.
Ruppert, S. (2003). Closing the College Participation Gap: A National
Summary. Denver: The Center for Community College Policy, Education
Commission of the States.
St. John, A. Kline, K. & Asker, E. (2001). The call for public accountability:
Rethinking the linkages to student outcomes. In D.E. Heller (Ed.), The
States and Public Higher Education Policy. Baltimore. MD: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Steadman, J. (2002, October). Higher Education Act: Reauthorization Status and
Issues. Almanac of Policy Issues. Congressional Research Services, pp. 1-13.
Retrieved August 14,2004 from the World Wide Web:
http: //www.policyalmanac. org/ education/archive/ crshighereducation. shtml
Stringer, E. (1999) Action research, second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Tierney, W, Corwin, Z, & Colyar, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing for college: Nine
elements o f effective outreach. Albany: State University of New York Press.
The 108th Congress House Hearings. (2003). Committee on Education and the
Workforce: U.S House of Representatives. Washington D.C: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Tinto, V. (2004). Student Retention and Graduation. Facing the Truth, Living
With the Consequences. The Pell Institute, Washington, DC.
Troumpoucis, P. (2004, June 7). Congress’ debate deepens over republican college
access bill. Community College Week. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000b).
Digest of education statistics, 1999 (NCES 2000-031). Washington, DC:
Author.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program
Studies Service, National Evaluation of GEAR UP A Summary of the First
Two Years, Washington D.C., 2002.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
Westphal, D. (2005, February 8). Budget slashes close to home. The Sacramento
Bee, pp. A l, A6.
. (2003b). What Colleges Contribute: Institutional Aid to Full time
Undergraduates attending 4-year Colleges and Universities. NCES, Report
2003-157. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences.
Wolanin, T. (March, 2003). Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act: Issues and
Options. Institute for Higher Education Policy, Washington DC.
Zumetta, W. (2001). Public Policy and accountability in higher education: Lessons
from the past and present for the new millennium. In D.E. Heller (Ed.), The
States and Public Higher Education Policy. Baltimore. MD: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Evaluation of the effects of a continuous improvement program on special education student achievement

PDF

Effects of an integrated content and methods course on preservice teachers' beliefs and efficacy toward mathematics

PDF

Increasing student retention through benchmarking and organizational improvement

PDF

Implementing computer assisted instruction in a multilevel -multigraded classroom evaluation /action plan

PDF

Adult school student achievement on the California High School Exit Examination: Are adult schools ready for the challenge?

PDF

Evaluation of a two -period double math program on the academic achievement of underperforming seventh grade math students

PDF

Implementation of performance indicators for the district office of the Dos Palos -Oro Loma Joint Unified School District

PDF

Evaluation of CLAD training in northern California

PDF

Evaluation of the effects of longitudinal tracking of student achievement to assess school quality

PDF

Corrective action plan for program improvement of a middle school

PDF

A case study of the Math Matters professional development program in one elementary school

PDF

An evaluation of probation supervision and its role in performance of students identified as living in poverty in Shasta County Court and Community Schools

PDF

An evaluation of the REMEDY project with an emphasis on sustainability: A Safe Schools /Healthy Students federal grant

PDF

Improving math and science education in charter secondary schools through the use of technology

PDF

A comparative case study: Tutoring in reading in two settings

PDF

Current and future managerial competency requirements for manufacturing, assembly, and /or material processing functions

PDF

An analysis of the implementation of content standards in selected unified school districts of California

PDF

A comparison of the perceptions of senior and junior enlisted Air Force personnel concerning deterrents to enrollment in and completion of adult education courses by junior personnel

PDF

Elementary administrators and teachers' perceptions of the teacher evaluation process in California's public schools

PDF

Faculty perception of stress in a non-profit business and technology college

Asset Metadata

Creator Mahar, Kathleen A. (author)

Core Title GEAR UP and TRIO: Redirecting the fight to preserve access and opportunity in the Higher Education Act

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, curriculum and instruction,Education, higher,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Cohn, Carl (committee member), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-380214

Unique identifier UC11340926

Identifier 3180455.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-380214 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3180455.pdf

Dmrecord 380214

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mahar, Kathleen A.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA