Search News


Browse Archives

News

On the Chopping Block Again

February 7, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

When high school graduation season came around last year, Lucy Jones noticed that every single senior in the Upward Bound program run by Rich Mountain Community College not only graduated, but had been accepted by a college.

For an enrichment program to see all of its graduates go to college may not sound unusual. But Rich Mountain's Upward Bound program serves three rural Arkansas counties in the Ouachita Mountains -- where going to college is decidedly not the norm. Only 9 percent of adults in the region have college degrees. With federal support, Rich Mountain has funds for 75 high school students a year -- students who have been identified as having college potential, but who generally don't have anyone in their families who has gone for a higher education.

The college provides them with tutoring, motivational speakers, explanations of the ACT, guides to financial aid, trips to college -- and constant monitoring to make sure that the students are enrolled in college prep programs and are working hard enough to earn good grades.

"This program is really making a difference in their lives, and in the community," said Jones, who coordinates the program for Rich Mountain. To put it mildly, she was upset Monday to learn that President Bush has proposed to eliminate all federal funds for the program -- even the part that focuses on preparing students to study math and science in college. "I just can't understand why they would zero this out," she said.

The president also proposed eliminating all funds Talent Search (which, like Upward Bound, is part of the cadre of programs known as TRIO ) and Gear Up -- all of which try to reach out to students who have college potential but who might otherwise not realize that they could afford a higher education or know to prepare for one.

Together, the president is proposing to save $750 million by killing the three programs. In budget documents, the administration did not attack the programs, but said that their aims would be better served by other administration efforts, in particular by a Bush plan to extend No Child Left Behind -- his controversial school-reform initiative -- to high schools.

Backers of the college outreach programs -- as they did when the president tried without success to kill the programs a year ago -- are coming out fighting. They note that the programs have data (largely gathered by the federal government) to show their effectiveness on a national scale. They argue that these programs put an emphasis on encouraging more rigorous study in high school -- a theme repeatedly endorsed by the Bush administration. They say that these programs use income level, not race or ethnicity, to determine eligibility -- again consistent with Bush administration principles. And the programs are decentralized, involving state and local agencies and nonprofit groups to run them -- again, characteristics that could be Republican mantras.

The problem, many educators say, is that these programs are associated with Democratic politicians and Bush needs the money to pay for his pet projects.

So advocates for the programs are planning a swift response to the proposals, hoping to win enough Congressional support to keep the programs alive.

A strong emphasis of the campaign will be on data. The thinking is that there is Congressional skepticism -- particular among Republicans -- about whether various education programs actually accomplish anything. In the case of Upward Bound and Talent Search, supporters will point to Education Department statistics showing that the college enrollment rates for high school graduates in the two programs are 91 percent and 73 percent, respectively -- compared to 41 percent for students similarly situated economically but who do not receive the enrichment programs.

At the same time, advocates for the programs also plan to make more of a political argument this year. The Council for Opportunity in Education commissioned a public opinion poll by Widmeyer Research and Polling on public attitudes about programs that prepare students for college. While no one expected any large segment of the public to be against college preparation, the idea behind the poll was to combat the belief among many in Congress that people don't care these days about programs to help low-income students. In fact, the polling found that overwhelming majorities -- among all racial and political groups -- back programs like the ones the president is trying to eliminate.

Arnold L. Mitchem, president of the council, said such data will be used to combat apathy. "We get told [by some in Congress] that there isn't much interest or support. This shows that is not the case," he said.

Mitchem called the president's proposals "totally irresponsible," and questioned how the White House could champion math and science education and try to kill off a program that helps low-income students prepare to become science majors. "The budget really unmasks the rhetoric," he said.

Likewise, he noted that the programs being slated for elimination serve diverse students -- and more than one third are white.

Deborah A. Santiago, vice president for policy and research at Excelencia in Education, a group that promotes ways to increase Latino college success, said that all of the research indicates that the programs proposed for elimination have increased Hispanic enrollments. "Eliminating these could be very detrimental," she said.

As for the argument that an expanded No Child Left Behind could take these programs' place, Santiago said that one doesn't need to get into a debate on the effectiveness of No Child Left Behind to see the flaws in that argument. "The reality is that we're not there yet," referring to the gains promised by the administration. "What is the alternative for students right now?"

Gear Up has a more difficult lobbying job in many ways because it is a younger program (started during the Clinton administration) and so it has a shorter track record to point to. But the record that is there suggests that the program is having a positive impact on the academic success of low-income students. For example, Education Department studies have found that Gear Up increased parents' and students' awareness of college requirements and encouraged students to take more rigorous mathematics in junior high school and high school -- achieving more in math as well.

Ranjit Sidhu, vice president of the National Council for Community and Education Partnerships, said that even if Congress rescues the program, time and effort is wasted when something is on the chopping block. "What happens is that you take the focus away from program implementation and direct service,' Sidhu said. "Our people are hugely committed to this program, but when they see the program in jeopardy, it makes it hard to plan and people question it."

This is especially the case, he said, because Gear Up works with so many community agencies, who want to be sure that their partners aren't going to disappear.

For her part, Jones of Rich Mountain Community College, said that she sees no choice but to push her program on -- whatever budget proposals are on the table. The main manufacturing jobs in the area have departed, with the relocation of several clothing factories to Mexico. That leaves jobs in logging and chicken farming.

"We need programs that show students why they need a higher education," she said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on On the Chopping Block Again

  • Posted by Icterus on February 7, 2006 at 9:35am EST
  • "Likewise, he noted that the programs being slated for elimination serve diverse students — and more than one third are white."

    The necessity of pointing out that white student would benefit speaks volumes; the presumption is that the public feels they would not. As long as discrimination remains legal in this country such programs will be looked at with a jaundiced eye. All might be hurt by public sentiment against discriminatory ones and the burden of proof will be on such programs to show they do not discriminate.

  • Why kill TRIO?
  • Posted by Alison P. Martinez on February 7, 2006 at 11:45am EST
  • One reason could be that TRIO is a public program, run by and for the demographic groups it helps.
    I just left a College Board press conference where a Bush spokesman praised Advanced Placement and spoke of targeting $360 million to off-the-shelf, high-end enrichment programs like AP and the International Baccalaureate. These are good programs, but more available to the privileged than the underprivileged, and the money stays in private (albeit "nonprofit") hands.

  • Chopping blaock
  • Posted by Gwen Shonkwiler at University of Nevada on February 7, 2006 at 1:15pm EST
  • So much for his State of the Union concerns about getting more students interested in the STEM areas and degree programs. I guess those areas and degree program must only be for upper middle class, white students who don't need financial aid or preparation for academic success at the postsecondary level. Too bad they aren't the fastest growing demographic group in the United States. Dubya probably doesn't pay much attention to that kind of data anyways....

  • Funding needs
  • Posted by Brian on February 7, 2006 at 3:21pm EST
  • These sound like excellent programs. With many states now running surpluses someone (NEA lobbyists, call your home offices) needs to lobby state govt's to take up the slack.

    Perhaps the NEA's foundation can see fit to fund some of these programs rather than let them die. It's website states that its mission is to provide "Grants (to fund) project-based learning and break-the-mold innovations that significantly improve achievement for underserved students."

  • Posted by Peter C. Herman , Prof. at SDSU on February 7, 2006 at 8:55pm EST
  • Some have made the argument that it is precisely because these programs are so successful that they are targeted for elimination. If one believes that government is in itself an evil, then programs such as these provide evidence to the contrary. Therefore, out they go, and in go programs that fail so miserably that one has to wonder if that was the plan all along. I have in mind the recent drug benefit fiasco, and the replacement of FEMA professionals with such cronies as Michael Brown, with results that we all witnessed on the evening news.

  • The chopping block:
  • Posted by Adrianna Behn on February 8, 2006 at 12:55pm EST
  • "In the case of Upward Bound and Education Department statistics showing that the college ENROLLMENT rates for high school graduates in the two programs are 91 percent and 73 percent, respectively — compared to 41 percent for students similarly situated." Please note the use of the word "enrollment." What is the graduation rate? That is what the Bush Administration is really interested in. That's for all you fair minded liberals.

  • RE: Chopping Block
  • Posted by Amber Mitchell at University of Central Oklahoma on February 9, 2006 at 4:35pm EST
  • The Code of Federal Regulations (34CFR645.1) states that Upward Bound is "...designed to generate in program participants the skills and motivation necessary to complete a program of secondary education and to enter and succeed in a program of postsecondary education." In a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Higher Education in 1999, Upward Bound students WERE found to be successful once in college. The study demonstrated that Upward Bound students earned more credit hours from 4-yr institutions, were more likely to receive financial aid (please note that to receive aid a student must maintain satisfactory academic standards established by the institution), were more actively engaged in campus activities, and were required to take fewer remedial classes.
    Graduation rates or not - it is evident that Upward Bound students succeed once entered into the postsecondary education system.