Congress approved of the new compromise bill, H.R. 1473, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011, on April 14, 2011. The President signed the legislation into law shortly thereafter. This bill went even further than the much maligned H.R. 1 in that it proposed to cut TRIO by a full $26.6 million. Meanwhile, GEAR UP received a $20.4 million cut. All told, this legislation will result in the loss of approximately 150,000 TRIO and GEAR UP students. Ultimately, a total of 215,000 low-income, potential first-generation students would have lost the opportunity participate in TRIO programs during both the Bush and Obama Administrations.

H.R. 1473 put forth several other cuts to programs important to low-income students and families. Included among such reductions is a $21.5 million cut to Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants and the elimination of several literacy programs(Striving Readers, Even Start, and Literacy through School Libraries). Despite the fact that the White House issued a veto threat over H.R. 1 and the Democrat-controlled Senate defeated this bill, the President and leaders within both branches of Congress hailed H.R. 1473 as a victory. However, activists who represent low-income populations uniformly rejected this legislation. In a public statement, COE President Arnold Mitchem noted that while “Americans define the American dream as the opportunity for their children to achieve mobility,” according to the Pew Foundation, “the United States provides less social mobility than many of its peer countries, including Germany and Canada.” Indeed, now that H.R. 1473 is the law of the land, this negative trend will only continue.

President Barack Obama on Monday proposed a $3.8-trillion federal budget for the 2011 fiscal year that includes $77.8-billion in total Education Department spending, a 31-percent increase that is driven largely by a plan to increase the value of Pell Grants faster than inflation.

The budget recommendation sent to the Democrat-controlled Congress makes education the most prominent exception to the administration’s promise of a net freeze on nondefense discretionary spending in the budget for 2011, which anticipates a deficit of $1.27-trillion.

As part of the plan, Mr. Obama, for the second year in a row, asked Congress to make the Pell Grant, the main federal aid program for low-income college students, an entitlement that receives an automatic budget allocation each year to meet the number of students who qualify.

He also proposed that the grant’s maximum per-student value increase each year by the rate of inflation plus one percentage point, bringing it from $5,550 in 2010 to $5,710 in 2011 and an estimated $6,900 in 2019. The president also proposed more-favorable repayment options for students taking federally subsidized loans.

“America’s economic security depends on improving education,” Mr. Obama’s education secretary, Arne Duncan, said in outlining the proposal on Monday. “We have to educate our way to a better economy.”

Over all, the administration proposed $49.7-billion in discretionary spending for the Education Department, an increase of 7.5 percent over the current year’s federal budget for non-entitlement programs. Most of that increase would go to programs for elementary and secondary education.

The president’s proposal, with few exceptions, won praise from higher-education leaders and advocates, even as they acknowledged the difficulty Congress will face in fully adopting it at a time of economic turmoil and budgetary restraint.

The Pell Grant proposal represents “a massive increase” that will help large numbers of students make the decision to attend college, said Richard T. Williams, a higher-education lobbyist at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer-advocacy organization.

Teacher Training a Concern

Mr. Obama’s plan, nevertheless, found some critics in higher education, including representatives of colleges of education alarmed by a proposal to shift jurisdiction over teacher-training programs into the part of the department’s budget that finances elementary and secondary education.

The proposed shift, which would create a new “Teacher and Leader Pathways” program in place of “Teacher Quality Partnerships” at the higher-education level, appears “shortsighted and counterintuitive,” said Sharon P. Robinson, president of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Mr. Obama has urged colleges of education to do a better job of giving teachers hands-on training. Ms. Robinson said she recognized the proposed shift in federal programs as an attempt to give elementary- and secondary-school systems more options for finding innovative training opportunities.

But that effort has not been accompanied by tighter quality controls on alternative teacher-training systems, Ms. Robinson said. For instance, she said, states don’t typically require graduates of alternative-education programs to prove their abilities in a classroom setting, even though that is required of graduates of traditional teacher colleges.

“This is a very bold proposal,” she said of the administration plan, “and I have to use my imagination to imagine that it’s going to work in the interest of continuing to support reform in teacher education.”

An association of colleges serving low-income students also complained about Mr. Obama’s proposal to maintain a budget of $910-million for TRIO programs, which help guide financially needy students into and through college.

The failure to seek a spending increase for TRIO “undermines the Obama administration’s education agenda,” Arnold L. Mitchem, president of the Council for Opportunity in Education, a lobbying group for the TRIO programs, said in a statement. Several other programs for needy students-including child care, work study, and the Gear Up college-preparatory program-also were proposed by Mr. Obama to receive no increase over their current appropriations.

Over all, however, the proposed acceleration in spending on education may only mean a further postponement in “the day of budget reckoning” awaiting the nation, said Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

“The public always is in favor of increases in education spending in theory, because it’s motherhood and apple pie,” said Mr. Sabato, a professor of politics. “Tax increases and tuition hikes are unpopular, of course. Few take the time or mental energy to put the pieces together.”
(http://chronicle.com/article/Big-Raise-for-Pell-Grants/63848/)

President Barack Obama on Monday proposed a $3.8-trillion federal budget for the 2011 fiscal year that includes $77.8-billion in total Education Department spending, a 31-percent increase that is driven largely by a plan to increase the value of Pell Grants faster than inflation.

The budget recommendation sent to the Democrat-controlled Congress makes education the most prominent exception to the administration’s promise of a net freeze on nondefense discretionary spending in the budget for 2011, which anticipates a deficit of $1.27-trillion.

As part of the plan, Mr. Obama, for the second year in a row, asked Congress to make the Pell Grant, the main federal aid program for low-income college students, an entitlement that receives an automatic budget allocation each year to meet the number of students who qualify.

He also proposed that the grant’s maximum per-student value increase each year by the rate of inflation plus one percentage point, bringing it from $5,550 in 2010 to $5,710 in 2011 and an estimated $6,900 in 2019. The president also proposed more-favorable repayment options for students taking federally subsidized loans.

“America’s economic security depends on improving education,” Mr. Obama’s education secretary, Arne Duncan, said in outlining the proposal on Monday. “We have to educate our way to a better economy.”

Over all, the administration proposed $49.7-billion in discretionary spending for the Education Department, an increase of 7.5 percent over the current year’s federal budget for non-entitlement programs. Most of that increase would go to programs for elementary and secondary education.

The president’s proposal, with few exceptions, won praise from higher-education leaders and advocates, even as they acknowledged the difficulty Congress will face in fully adopting it at a time of economic turmoil and budgetary restraint.

The Pell Grant proposal represents “a massive increase” that will help large numbers of students make the decision to attend college, said Richard T. Williams, a higher-education lobbyist at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer-advocacy organization.

Teacher Training a Concern

Mr. Obama’s plan, nevertheless, found some critics in higher education, including representatives of colleges of education alarmed by a proposal to shift jurisdiction over teacher-training programs into the part of the department’s budget that finances elementary and secondary education.

The proposed shift, which would create a new “Teacher and Leader Pathways” program in place of “Teacher Quality Partnerships” at the higher-education level, appears “shortsighted and counterintuitive,” said Sharon P. Robinson, president of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Mr. Obama has urged colleges of education to do a better job of giving teachers hands-on training. Ms. Robinson said she recognized the proposed shift in federal programs as an attempt to give elementary- and secondary-school systems more options for finding innovative training opportunities.

But that effort has not been accompanied by tighter quality controls on alternative teacher-training systems, Ms. Robinson said. For instance, she said, states don’t typically require graduates of alternative-education programs to prove their abilities in a classroom setting, even though that is required of graduates of traditional teacher colleges.

“This is a very bold proposal,” she said of the administration plan, “and I have to use my imagination to imagine that it’s going to work in the interest of continuing to support reform in teacher education.”

An association of colleges serving low-income students also complained about Mr. Obama’s proposal to maintain a budget of $910-million for TRIO programs, which help guide financially needy students into and through college.

The failure to seek a spending increase for TRIO “undermines the Obama administration’s education agenda,” Arnold L. Mitchem, president of the Council for Opportunity in Education, a lobbying group for the TRIO programs, said in a statement. Several other programs for needy students-including child care, work study, and the Gear Up college-preparatory program-also were proposed by Mr. Obama to receive no increase over their current appropriations.

Over all, however, the proposed acceleration in spending on education may only mean a further postponement in “the day of budget reckoning” awaiting the nation, said Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

“The public always is in favor of increases in education spending in theory, because it’s motherhood and apple pie,” said Mr. Sabato, a professor of politics. “Tax increases and tuition hikes are unpopular, of course. Few take the time or mental energy to put the pieces together.”
(http://chronicle.com/article/Big-Raise-for-Pell-Grants/63848/)

Criteria for Nomination:
1. The TRIO Achiever candidate must be a former TRIO project participant who was enrolled in and successfully completed a TRIO program.

2. The TRIO Achiever candidate must have enrolled in and successfully completed a postsecondary program of study resulting in a baccalaureate or terminal degree from an accredited institution of higher education. Preference is given to nominees who have been out of school for five years or more.

3. The TRIO Achiever candidate must be a person of high stature within his/her profession or has received recognition for outstanding achievement.

4. The TRIO Achiever candidate must currently be employed above the entry level designation for his/her profession or enrolled in a program for a degree above the baccalaureate degree.

5. The TRIO Achiever candidate must have made significant civic, community, or professional contributions.

6. Participation in the TRIO project must have had significant impact upon the candidate in obtaining his/her educational and/or professional objectives (as acknowledged by the participant).

Required Supporting Documentation:
1. TRIO Achievers Nomination Form–attached
2. Photo of Nominee
3. Testimonial letter from nominator
4. One professional letter of reference
5. Personal Statement from nominee
6. Nominee’s Resume or CV

Nominators are strongly encouraged to submit all nomination materials electronically to Jodi Koehn-Pike at: jodi.koehnpike@coenet.us

The deadline for 2010 Achiever nominations is June 4. Please contact Jodi Koehn-Pike by phone at (202) 347-7430 or e-mail (jodi.koehnpike@coenet.us) if you have any questions or concerns.

Our country is losing its competitiveness because we are not adequately investing in human capital. The most ominous sign of this trend is that the educational attainment of young adults is slipping steadily: The U.S. is the most developed nation in the world, yet it is now, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 15th among 29 industrialized countries in college completionrates.

This failure to prepare our workforce is already having serious repercussions. The Business-Higher Education Forum recently warned that the “glaring and growing need” for higher-skilled and credentialed workers is exacerbating the nation’s economic woes and hobbling its long-term outlook. And many employers note that the gap between workforce needs and worker skills is already significantly compromising productivity.

In California, two-fifths of the state’s jobs are expected to require college degrees by the year 2020. But the number of adults with those credentials will fall far short, according to projections cited by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Researchers project that California can meet its future workforce needs–but only if it increases the number of Hispanics who earn college degrees.

The Obama administration wants to reverse the decline in our baccalaureate attainment, and has set a goal that the U.S. will produce the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. To reach that goal, the administration plans to increase the Pell Grant program, reform and expand the reach of community colleges, invest federal money in research and data collection, reform the student loan program and simplify the student aid application process.

Baccalaureate attainment, of course, is the key to realizing President Obama’s goal, and the sine qua non for assuring America’s economic competitiveness. But we will not meet the administration’s goal if the president and Congress continue to oversimplify the task of graduating students from families with no college background–the vast majority of low-income students–by relying principally on a financial aid strategy. That tactic is well meaning, but short-sighted.

Instead, we must put in place strategies to ensure that a higher proportion of nontraditional students–low-income, first-generation, minority and older students–not only enter but complete college. Low-income, first-generation students face a myriad of obstacles–class, cultural, informational, academic and social–to postsecondary education, not simply a lack of financial resources.

Two industry leaders understand the complexity of this challenge. General Electric (through its Developing Futures initiative) and Goldman Sachs (through its Developing High-Potential Youth and other programs) are underwriting efforts to help low-income and minority youth address these multiple barriers. The premise of these programs is simple: provide services through an array of personal and academic interventions both in and out of the classroom that focus squarely on baccalaureate attainment. In doing, so they are expanding approaches like Upward Bound and Student Support Services (the so-called TRIO programs) that have been operating with federal support since 1965, and that currently serve more than 800,000 students from sixth grade through college graduation.

But unfortunately, although 5.5 million students receive federal grant aid to attend college, fewer than 5% of those college students receive the vital supportive services necessary to maximize that investment.

The results of federal higher education policy are a glaring testament to its insufficiency. While the president proposes to invest $28 billion in Pell Grants, an amount that has ballooned by 214% in the last eight years, the gap in college completion based on income has widened. Students in the lowest income quartile have less than a 10% chance of earning a bachelor’s degree by age 24.

We must change course.

– Orginally posted on Council for Opportunity in Education
http://www.coenet.us/ecm/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Spotlight&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7402

Our country is losing its competitiveness because we are not adequately investing in human capital. The most ominous sign of this trend is that the educational attainment of young adults is slipping steadily: The U.S. is the most developed nation in the world, yet it is now, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 15th among 29 industrialized countries in college completionrates.

This failure to prepare our workforce is already having serious repercussions. The Business-Higher Education Forum recently warned that the “glaring and growing need” for higher-skilled and credentialed workers is exacerbating the nation’s economic woes and hobbling its long-term outlook. And many employers note that the gap between workforce needs and worker skills is already significantly compromising productivity.

In California, two-fifths of the state’s jobs are expected to require college degrees by the year 2020. But the number of adults with those credentials will fall far short, according to projections cited by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Researchers project that California can meet its future workforce needs–but only if it increases the number of Hispanics who earn college degrees.

The Obama administration wants to reverse the decline in our baccalaureate attainment, and has set a goal that the U.S. will produce the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. To reach that goal, the administration plans to increase the Pell Grant program, reform and expand the reach of community colleges, invest federal money in research and data collection, reform the student loan program and simplify the student aid application process.

Baccalaureate attainment, of course, is the key to realizing President Obama’s goal, and the sine qua non for assuring America’s economic competitiveness. But we will not meet the administration’s goal if the president and Congress continue to oversimplify the task of graduating students from families with no college background–the vast majority of low-income students–by relying principally on a financial aid strategy. That tactic is well meaning, but short-sighted.

Instead, we must put in place strategies to ensure that a higher proportion of nontraditional students–low-income, first-generation, minority and older students–not only enter but complete college. Low-income, first-generation students face a myriad of obstacles–class, cultural, informational, academic and social–to postsecondary education, not simply a lack of financial resources.

Two industry leaders understand the complexity of this challenge. General Electric (through its Developing Futures initiative) and Goldman Sachs (through its Developing High-Potential Youth and other programs) are underwriting efforts to help low-income and minority youth address these multiple barriers. The premise of these programs is simple: provide services through an array of personal and academic interventions both in and out of the classroom that focus squarely on baccalaureate attainment. In doing, so they are expanding approaches like Upward Bound and Student Support Services (the so-called TRIO programs) that have been operating with federal support since 1965, and that currently serve more than 800,000 students from sixth grade through college graduation.

But unfortunately, although 5.5 million students receive federal grant aid to attend college, fewer than 5% of those college students receive the vital supportive services necessary to maximize that investment.

The results of federal higher education policy are a glaring testament to its insufficiency. While the president proposes to invest $28 billion in Pell Grants, an amount that has ballooned by 214% in the last eight years, the gap in college completion based on income has widened. Students in the lowest income quartile have less than a 10% chance of earning a bachelor’s degree by age 24.

We must change course.

– Orginally posted on Council for Opportunity in Education
http://www.coenet.us/ecm/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Spotlight&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7402

By Arnold L. Mitchem

If we want to bridge the gap in education, government should invest in proven programs.

Any good businessperson will tell you that the way to evaluate the soundness of an investment is a return on investment analysis. ROI measures the efficiency of a financial expenditure. It is a popular metric because of its versatility and simplicity. If an investment does not have a positive ROI, a company should pass on it, or otherwise limit the assets it allocates.

The United States should apply the same principle when measuring the investment in the education of our young people, particularly in the lives of those from low-income and minority families.

Many argue that the economic future of the United States is linked to successfully investing in education. President Obama shares this belief and, as such, is poised to invest billions in education “innovation.” It’s a good and noble idea, but our country is at risk of having a negative ROI if it fails to invest in programs that have proven records of helping historically disadvantaged students succeed.

Let’s take, for example, one of the more than 2,800 federal TRIO programs at schools across the country — programs that aim to assist low-income students to succeed in college.

The University of Oklahoma’s (OU) Project Threshold, a TRIO program, invested in Sherry Williams, a first-generation college minority from an economically disadvantaged family. While OU recognized her talent and potential to succeed, the school also acknowledged that she would need additional tools and support, such as tutoring, to help her along the way. The school’s message was direct: Failure is not an option. Today, Sherry serves as vice president and corporate secretary of Halliburton.

There are hundreds of thousands of students who, like Sherry, demonstrate ability and promise when they arrive on a college campus, but as the first in their families to go to college, have no idea how to negotiate the institution. When these students flounder — and they often do — it is the school’s responsibility to offer solutions.

Established in the mid-1960s, TRIO programs have a four-decade track record of successfully helping disadvantaged students overcome the non-financial barriers to college graduation. Investments such as OU’s Project Threshold are proof that federal funding of TRIO has both a positive ROI, and the potential to pay off significantly.

Serving as further proof that TRIO is a smart investment is the Upward Bound program, an intensive program of instruction, tutoring, counseling, mentoring and cultural enrichment, which targets students in the ninth grade. It costs about $7,350 on average for a single student to participate in the program. Yet this investment yields almost five times the amount in the form of additional taxes collected from UB participants, according to data reported by Department of Education researcher Margaret Cahalan to the Educational Testing Service in Fall 2009.

Lest there be any doubt, consider the fact that TRIO students not only enter and graduate college at higher rates than students who do not receive such support services, but that the public reaps the benefits in the form of a better educated population, mentors who can inspire others, and — since college grads make more money — the generation of greater tax revenue.

It’s simple math: The federal investment in TRIO pays off.

Yet despite these individual and collective benefits, federal funding for TRIO programs has remained stagnant over the last eight years, and threatens to remain so. Moreover, most of the programs serve fewer than 10% of the students who are eligible for them.

If we wish to make sizable gains in achievement and productivity in this country, we must seize the present moment to expand our investment in college opportunity–but we must not ignore vital and time-tested programs such as TRIO.

So at a time when we repeatedly hear about America losing its competitive advantage in the world, when we hear that American students are lagging behind in math, science, and technology, we must ask, how do we bridge the gap in education for the poor, working poor, and lower-income students? TRIO programs have been one effective answer to that question for 40 years.

Public investment in TRIO is not an abstract education policy debate; it is not about entitlements or handouts. TRIO is about a consistent, proven, long-term investment in the greatest, most renewable resource in this country — the education of America’s young people.

– Article originally posted in Forbes

(http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/26/education-government-roi-leadership-thought-leaders-mitchem.html)

By Arnold L. Mitchem

If we want to bridge the gap in education, government should invest in proven programs.

Any good businessperson will tell you that the way to evaluate the soundness of an investment is a return on investment analysis. ROI measures the efficiency of a financial expenditure. It is a popular metric because of its versatility and simplicity. If an investment does not have a positive ROI, a company should pass on it, or otherwise limit the assets it allocates.

The United States should apply the same principle when measuring the investment in the education of our young people, particularly in the lives of those from low-income and minority families.

Many argue that the economic future of the United States is linked to successfully investing in education. President Obama shares this belief and, as such, is poised to invest billions in education “innovation.” It’s a good and noble idea, but our country is at risk of having a negative ROI if it fails to invest in programs that have proven records of helping historically disadvantaged students succeed.

Let’s take, for example, one of the more than 2,800 federal TRIO programs at schools across the country — programs that aim to assist low-income students to succeed in college.

The University of Oklahoma’s (OU) Project Threshold, a TRIO program, invested in Sherry Williams, a first-generation college minority from an economically disadvantaged family. While OU recognized her talent and potential to succeed, the school also acknowledged that she would need additional tools and support, such as tutoring, to help her along the way. The school’s message was direct: Failure is not an option. Today, Sherry serves as vice president and corporate secretary of Halliburton.

There are hundreds of thousands of students who, like Sherry, demonstrate ability and promise when they arrive on a college campus, but as the first in their families to go to college, have no idea how to negotiate the institution. When these students flounder — and they often do — it is the school’s responsibility to offer solutions.

Established in the mid-1960s, TRIO programs have a four-decade track record of successfully helping disadvantaged students overcome the non-financial barriers to college graduation. Investments such as OU’s Project Threshold are proof that federal funding of TRIO has both a positive ROI, and the potential to pay off significantly.

Serving as further proof that TRIO is a smart investment is the Upward Bound program, an intensive program of instruction, tutoring, counseling, mentoring and cultural enrichment, which targets students in the ninth grade. It costs about $7,350 on average for a single student to participate in the program. Yet this investment yields almost five times the amount in the form of additional taxes collected from UB participants, according to data reported by Department of Education researcher Margaret Cahalan to the Educational Testing Service in Fall 2009.

Lest there be any doubt, consider the fact that TRIO students not only enter and graduate college at higher rates than students who do not receive such support services, but that the public reaps the benefits in the form of a better educated population, mentors who can inspire others, and — since college grads make more money — the generation of greater tax revenue.

It’s simple math: The federal investment in TRIO pays off.

Yet despite these individual and collective benefits, federal funding for TRIO programs has remained stagnant over the last eight years, and threatens to remain so. Moreover, most of the programs serve fewer than 10% of the students who are eligible for them.

If we wish to make sizable gains in achievement and productivity in this country, we must seize the present moment to expand our investment in college opportunity–but we must not ignore vital and time-tested programs such as TRIO.

So at a time when we repeatedly hear about America losing its competitive advantage in the world, when we hear that American students are lagging behind in math, science, and technology, we must ask, how do we bridge the gap in education for the poor, working poor, and lower-income students? TRIO programs have been one effective answer to that question for 40 years.

Public investment in TRIO is not an abstract education policy debate; it is not about entitlements or handouts. TRIO is about a consistent, proven, long-term investment in the greatest, most renewable resource in this country — the education of America’s young people.

– Article originally posted in Forbes

(http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/26/education-government-roi-leadership-thought-leaders-mitchem.html)