Chairman McKeon, Congressman Kildee, Members of the Sub-committee; I very much appreciate this opportunity to testify on the subject of Expanding Access to College in America: How the Higher Education Act Can Put College Within Reach. My name is Arnold Mitchem and I am President of the Council for Opportunity in Education. The Council is an organization of over 900 colleges, universities and agencies. It was founded in 1981 to advance the interests of low-income students, first-generation students and disabled students aspiring to attend and succeed in college. Our particular legislative interest is the Federal TRIO Programs.

The academic degrees that it took me several decades to earn hang in a place of honor in my home. But next to them, also in a place of honor, hangs my father’s high school diploma. I placed it there because I wanted to remind my children – and perhaps more importantly myself – that my educational accomplishments rested on his struggles and the struggles of others who came before.

As Congress and the higher education community begin to focus on access during this eighth reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I think that all of us would do well to examine its foundation and to look from where we have come. When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Higher Education Act into law on November 8, 1965 in San Marcos, Texas he focused on the 1.3 million young people who had graduated from high school the previous year and had not entered college. And he urged those attending that ceremony to:

"Look into the faces of your students and your children and your grandchildren . . . 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 provide and permit and assist every child born in these borders to receive all the education that they can take."

Five years later on March 19, 1970, President Richard Nixon sent his higher education message to Congress. The deliberations responding to that message resulted in the authorization of the Pell Grant program. In that message, President Nixon again focused on inequities that existed in American citizens’ chances to attend college and the nation’s responsibilities to address those inequities:

"No qualified student who wants to go to college should be barred by lack of money. That has long been a great American goal: I propose that we achieve it now. . . Something is basically unequal about opportunity for higher education when a young person whose family earns more than $15,000 a year is nine times more likely to attend college than a young person whose family earns less than $3,000. Something is basically wrong with Federal policy toward higher education when it has failed to correct this inequity and when government programs . . . have largely operated without . . . a coherent long-range plan."

In 1972, the Congress did examine the premises of higher education policy and – with the establishment of the Pell Grant Program -- complimented by SEOG, Work-Study, loans and the Federal TRIO Programs – developed a coherent long-range plan to maximize opportunity. And that plan has worked. The number of students participating in postsecondary education immediately after high school graduation has increased in the past thirty years and this increase has occurred across income levels. For example, in 1998 almost half of all low-income high school graduates immediately enrolled in college, a percentage twice as high as it was in 1972.

But much remains to be done to assure a level playing field, particularly because longstanding gaps with regard to higher education opportunities between higher and lower income groups have not diminished dramatically. As each of you stressed during the recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the historic No Child Left Behind legislation – a coherent plan requires accountability and benchmarking. An important component of the 2004 Higher Education reauthorization could be ensuring such accountability.

During this Reauthorization, let us set for ourselves some realistic, measurable goals. As a starting point of discussion, I would suggest that goals be agreed upon in three areas:

Reducing the gap by one percentage point a year – five points over the years covered by the reauthorization – may be an appropriate goal. I have attached charts that suggest current differences between low-income students and other students in each of these areas – and the targets I am proposing. But before I speak to what the TRIO Programs can and should do to help our nation achieve these goals – or other goals that emerge from your deliberations – let me clarify two points.

It is critical that access and opportunity for low-income students be the focus of your deliberations during this reauthorization and that that your focus is not lost among the very real and complex details of everything from loan consolidation, to loan limits, to needs analysis.

TRIO’s Pre-College Programs – Educational Opportunity Centers (EOCs), Talent Search, and Upward Bound – Assist Low-income Students in Preparing for and Enrolling in Postsecondary Education.

TRIO’s Pre-College Programs serve over 450,000 youth —both in-school and out of school youth – and over 215,00 adults and assist them in preparing for college, applying for college, and applying for student financial aid. TRIO Programs also involve students’ families in the college preparation process. Through workshops, meetings with family members, and one-on-one counseling that begin as early as the sixth grade, EOCs, Talent Search, and Upward Bound assist students and their families in navigating the road to college. TRIO Programs are there to assure students and families that funds are available to finance their college education, to make sure they enroll in challenging college-preparatory courses, and to provide academic assistance through tutoring, supplemental courses, and summer programs to fill in any gaps in the student’s academic preparation.

When the Higher Education Act was authorized in 1965, our view of the obstacles facing low-income students was less clear than it is today. Inequities in educational preparation related to income were less obvious. Other obstacles faced by many low-income and first-generation students such as lack of information and lack of peer and family support were not well understood. Committee hearings and studies related to No Child Left Behind provide a thorough grounding in the non-financial obstacles that low-income, first-generation and disabled students face in preparing for college. Schools alone cannot assist disadvantaged youth in maintaining high aspirations and developing the competencies to achieve those aspirations. They need informed, intrusive and caring support and information from the whole community, and TRIO Programs have historically become a vital link in that support

Low-income students who enter college intending to complete a four-year degree have about a 75% chance of earning a baccalaureate degree as their more affluent peers. Numerous factors contribute to student attrition – from the competing demands of work (a national study of TRIO college students, for example, found that the average student worked over 25 hours each week), to gaps in academic preparation, to lack of confidence. But TRIO services have been shown to be very effective in increasing retention – from 40% to 49% through the third year. TRIO’s college programs – Student Support Services and McNair – provide these vital services to over 200,000 students annually. But funding currently places unacceptable levels on the number of students that can be reached. Typically Student Support Services projects currently serve fewer than 500 students and in California alone there are more than 37 colleges that enroll over 1,000 Pell recipients who could benefit from such support. In my view, Congress must seriously consider how best to protect its student aid investment by assisting institutions in ensuring greater student success. TRIO’s Student Support Services programs provide critical assistance in this area. They couple supportive services with Pre-freshman summer programs and appropriate financial aid to successfully increase student retention rates.

The Council for Opportunity in Education believes that two hallmarks of the TRIO authority must be preserved during this Reauthorization. The first is the class-based nature of TRIO targeting. In deliberations preceding the 1980 Reauthorization of the Higher Education, TRIO professionals came together in meetings across the country to make recommendations regarding the focus of TRIO. At that time, and before every reauthorization thereafter, the TRIO community has stood behind current eligibility criteria and resisted efforts to focus TRIO services on specific racial or ethnic groups or regions of the country. We ask the Committee to maintain that element of program integrity.

I also want to point out that since 1980, the Prior Experience provision in the TRIO legislation has provided an accountability mechanism for institutions and agencies that receive TRIO funds without keeping other institutions from sponsoring TRIO Programs. New applicants for TRIO funds have a better chance of being funded that the same would have in applying for other Department of Education administered programs. For example, on average over the last three years of grant competitions, a "new applicant" has had a 38% chance of receiving a TRIO grant. The same college’s chance of being funded as a new applicant would only be 19% in either the Title III, Part A Program or GEAR UP. We ask, too, that you protect Prior Experience in your deliberations.

President Bush, the full Committee and the entire nation are justly proud of the distance traveled in No Child Left Behind. And we collectively through our elementary, middle, and high schools acknowledge and accept that important responsibility. Higher education has a somewhat different responsibility, however. Colleges and universities must not only leave no American behind, they must also, through the creation and transfer of knowledge, continue to move entire generations forward to a better life. By addressing the non-financial barriers to access and success in college, TRIO Programs assure that students from low-income families, students with disabilities, and students who are in the first-generation in their family to attend college have access to the mobility that only higher education affords. In our knowledge-based, global economy, the importance of such education can only increase.

The Council and the TRIO community look forward to working with the Subcommittee throughout the reauthorization process to strengthen and improve TRIO and other student assistance programs. I appreciate this opportunity to testify and I would be pleased to answer any questions at this time.