2006 Upward Bound Applications
| Contacting Congress Regarding ED's Attempt to Alter Participant Eligibility | ||
| Message from D. Conwell | UB Roundtable Notes | Dr. Mitchem's Letter to L. Oxendine |
Many of you have asked what action you can take to voice your concern about the Department of Education's attempt to impose student eligibility criteria on colleges and agencies that sponsor Upward Bound programs.
The Department's attempt to restrict TRIO eligibility is outside its authority and if enacted would circumvent a legislative and regulatory process already approved by Congress. This requirement states that the discretion to choose among eligible Upward Bound students rests not with the Department but rather with administrators at the campus level.
We urge you to pass along the letter (template in MS Word of Adobe PDF) to both your Senators and Members of Congress and let them know that the Department is considering action that would affect an institution's discretion to design and manage any of their TRIO programs. It is critical that we act now to halt this attempt to circumvent federal policy which has been in place for more than a quarter of a century!
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Bob Kearley,
bob.kearley@coenet.us or Al Phillips, alvin.phillips@coenet.us
Sincerely,
Dr. Arnold L. Mitchem
President,
Council for Opportunity in Education
[TOP]
On April 21, 2006 eighteen TRiO personnel, of all levels representing 5 TRiO projects from the central and northern regions of California met to collectively discuss the "proposed" changes to Upward Bound as suggested by Mr. Larry Oxendine, Division Director of Federal TRiO Programs. It is imperative and of vital importance that as a TRiO community representing the interests of the historically denied, that we take time to critically analyze the implications and impact these "proposed" changes will have on our students and the programs we operate.
Why is this call to action important? During the Upward Bound writing competition of 1995 out of the nearly 900 Upward Bound projects in existence during this time, there were only a handful of written responses from Upward Bound personnel in respects to the changes being proposed. The result was the imposition of constraints that many since that time have objected to but have been forced to live with. Unfortunately people missed the opportunity to speak up during this during this critical time.
In an effort to safeguard the interests of our students and programs, we must be willing to address these "proposed" recommendations. We must take an active stance in presenting our concerns to Mr. Oxendine. Policy analysis and critical thinking are as essential to the work of TRiO just as is completing APR's or recruiting students.
As a TRiO personnel it is all of our responsibility to take an active role in the discussions regarding any restrictions or change in requirements affecting our grants. This discussion should result in the written input by TRiO personnel during the period of public comment. Our community has a wealth of knowledge and experience that can contribute to the analysis and critique of the recommendations that were crafted by the group of TRiO personnel who met on April 21, 2006.
It is our view that the TRiO community benefits when all TRiO projects and their staffs are engaged in full and regular discussion about politics and policies affecting our community. It is in this spirit that these three recommendations are offered:
1) That all Directors organize within their weekly staff meetings, a section on the agenda that is dedicatedto review and analyze the proposed changes to Upward Bound from Mr. Oxendine.
2) All TRiO personnel articulate in written form, their response to the proposed changes.
3) That where conditions allow, TRiO projects in local areas organize meetings where the results of individual project discussions are shared in a 'roundtable' setting.
The foundation for the analysis formulated at the roundtable was guided by federal law; Re-authorization of Higher Ed. Act., EDGAR, and O.M.B. Circular. Here are the results of this roundtable discussion.
Darlene R. Conwell
Program Coordinator
University of San Francisco
Upward Bound Project
2130 Fulton Street
San Francisco, CA 94117-1080
415 422-2491
Fax 422-2496
conwell@usfca.edu
Dr. A Mitchem's May 1, 2006 letter to Mr. L. Oxendine regarding proposed changes
The first COE chat regarding proposed ED changes to the Upward Bound Application
| MS Word | Adobe PDF |
Get the COE PowerPoint shown during the Seminar with the Dept. of Education
May 1, 2006
Larry Oxendine
Director
Office of Federal TRIO Programs
US Department of Education
1990 K Street, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Oxendine:
As we discussed last week, the Council for Opportunity in Education is adamantly opposed to any attempt to circumvent the legislative and regulatory processes by adding additional requirements to eligibility for Upward Bound students. Our understanding is that the U.S. Department of Education is considering adding a grade-level requirement for entering Upward Bound students that exceeds the regulatory requirement. The Department is also considering adding language regarding academic requirements for one-third of newly-admitted students.
In adopting the current eligibility requirements for Upward Bound in 1980, the Congress explained that the discretion to choose among eligible students rested not with the U.S. Department of Education (then Office of Education) but rather with administrators at the local level:
S 1839 defines the target population for TRIO services as students from disadvantaged backgrounds, but it recognizes that disadvantage in relation to college attendance, retention and completion can be caused by many factors. Rather than attempt to list each possible index of disadvantage, the bill defines educational disadvantage in terms of two factors which have been shown to have very high correlation with college completion: family income and parents’ educational level. The bill provides program administrators at the local level with the discretion to chose from among this eligible population those students who are most in need of services in a given institution or in a given area. (Senate Report 996-733.
This same wording was reiterated by both Houses of Congress during subsequent reauthorizations.
We have discussed the difference between the type of “absolute priority” that you have mentioned and the Upward Bound Special Initiative implemented by the Department in 1999. You recall, of course, that the Special Initiative was supplemental funding for currently-funded Upward Bound programs who wanted to serve additional students on whom the Department was placing special emphasis. Choosing to participate in the Special Initiative in no way affected whether an institution or agency would be funded. All funding for the Special Initiative – while it is currently part of an institution’s base grant – was initially supplemental. The Council does not oppose special incentives provided to current grantees to encourage them to adopt certain approaches or serve students with particular characteristics. It does oppose any attempt to change eligibility requirements outside of the processes required by law.
I very much hope this clarifies our position. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Arnold L. Mitchem
President
[TOP]
