FR Doc 06-8101
[Federal Register: September 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 184)]
[Notices]
[Page 55447-55450]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22se06-59]
Download: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Upward Bound Program
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education announces
a priority under the Upward Bound (UB) Program. This priority will help
focus Federal resources on students most in need of academic assistance
and increase the effectiveness of the UB Program.
Dates: This priority is effective October 23, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Geraldine Smith or Gaby Watts, U.S.
Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 7020, Washington, DC
20006-8512, or via Internet: TRIO@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We published a notice of proposed priority
(NPP) in the Federal Register on July 3, 2006 (71 FR 37926). We
discussed our proposals for this program in the NPP on pages 37926-
37928.
This notice of final priority contains three changes from the NPP.
We fully explain these changes in the Analysis of Comments and Changes
section that follows.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to our invitation in the NPP, 110 parties submitted
comments. An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the
priority follows. We group major issues according to subject.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes and
suggested changes we are not authorized to make under the applicable
statutory authority.
Authority to Implement a Priority in the UB Program
Comment: A number of commenters expressed concern that the
Department had overstepped its legislative and regulatory authority in
proposing this priority. They believe the Department does not have the
legal authority to impose a priority not specified in statute and that
the proposed priority substitutes an administrative priority for a
congressional priority, and circumvents legislation and regulations
regarding selection of program participants based on grade level and
need for academic support.
Discussion: The Secretary does not agree with these commenters. The
Department's authority to establish priorities for the TRIO programs
and other discretionary grant programs is well established. The
Department's regulations clearly reflect this authority in 34 CFR 74.11
and 75.105. Section 402C of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended (HEA), which authorizes the UB program, does not prohibit or
limit the Secretary's authority to establish funding priorities to
achieve the UB program's purposes. In fact, the Secretary has
previously established priorities for the UB Program without challenge
or questions. See the notice of proposed priority, 68 FR 37469 (June
24, 2003) and the notice of final priority, 68 FR 50958 (August 22,
2003), and the notice of proposed priority, 65 FR 35238 (June 1, 2000)
and the notice of final priority, 65 FR 45698 (July 24, 2000).
The priority proposed by the Secretary is consistent with the
requirements for funding included in section 402C(d)(3) and (4) of the
HEA. Those provisions stipulate that each UB program participant must
have a need for academic support and must have completed eight years of
elementary school education.Change: None.
Selection of First-Time UB Participants From Otherwise Eligible
Students Who Have Completed the 8th Grade But Not the 9th Grade in
Secondary School
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed concerns about the proposal
to limit the selection of new UB participants to students who have
completed the 8th grade but not the 9th grade in secondary school.
These commenters stated that the focus on these students would not
contribute to the effectiveness of the UB Program because of the lack
of maturity of younger students; higher drop-out rates among younger
students; the high mobility rates of UB participants; and increased
costs for those projects that currently recruit from high schools that
begin with the 10th grade. In addition, some commenters argued that
selecting students in the 10th grade allows students to participate in
the UB program for 36 months and those students have similar success
rates as students selected during the 9th grade.
Discussion: A 2004 report of a study conducted for the Department
titled, The Impacts of Regular Upward Bound: Results from the Third
Follow-Up Data Collection (the Study) concluded that, for students who
participated in the UB program for less than two years, an additional
year of participation in the program could raise the postsecondary
enrollment rate by as much as nine percentage points. Among UB program
participants who did not complete the program, the Study found that UB
[[Page 55448]]
program completion could raise postsecondary enrollment by as much as
17 percentage points.
We agree with the commenters that students entering the UB program
in the 10th grade would have an opportunity to receive UB services for
36 months. We believe that for students without a high academic risk
for failure, participation in the UB program for 36 months would
increase the postsecondary enrollment rate especially among students
who remain in the program until high school graduation. Students that
have a high academic risk for failure, on the other hand, require more
intensive services and will likely receive a greater benefit by having
access to the UB program for four complete years. In addition, a recent
evaluation of high school reform models by MDRC (a nonprofit,
nonpartisan social policy research organization) suggests that focusing
on the critical transition year of ninth grade can make a real
difference for students who enter high school with poor academic
skills. Quint, Janet, Meeting Five Critical Challenges of High School
Reform (May, 2006). Accordingly, we will allow UB projects to select
from otherwise eligible students, those students who have completed the
8th grade but not the 10th grade in secondary school, except for the 30
percent of new students who must have a high academic risk for failure.
However, expanding the selection of UB program participants to include
those students who have completed the 9th grade but not the 10th grade,
creates an opportunity for students not selected to participate in the
UB program prior to the students' completion of the 9th grade to
reapply for UB program participation the following year. To avoid
having the same students included as participants in both the control
group and the UB program, we have made a change to prohibit such dual
participation.
Change: We have modified the priority to allow UB projects to
select otherwise eligible students who have completed the 8th grade but
not the 10th grade in secondary school, except for the 30 percent of
new students who must have a high academic risk for failure. The 30
percent of new students who must have a high academic risk for failure
must be selected from otherwise eligible students who have completed
the 8th grade but not the 9th grade in secondary school. The remaining
new students may or may not have a high academic risk for failure and
may or may not have completed the 9th grade in secondary school.
We have also modified the priority to provide that students
selected to participate in the control group may not be subsequently
selected to participate in the UB program.
Comment: Some commenters argued that it would be counter-productive
and unfair to students if UB projects were not allowed to accept
transfer students who participated in the UB program at a previous
school because the students have completed the 9th grade.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenters.
Change: We have changed the priority to provide that a student who
has previously participated in a regular UB project may be selected to
continue to participate in the same or different UB project
notwithstanding the student's grade level.
Select Not Less Than 30 Percent of New Participants From Students Who
Have a High Academic Risk for Failure
Comment: Some commenters applauded the proposal to focus UB
services on students with the most need. Others objected to what they
view as changes that will turn the UB program into a dropout prevention
program instead of a college prep program. Some commenters argued that
serving students with a high academic risk for failure unfairly
penalizes students who are doing well in school, while others
recommended that we expand the definition of high academic risk for
failure to include social risks, such as coming from a single parent
home or exposure to gang pressure.
Discussion: We do not agree that the priority will penalize
students for doing well in school. Students doing well academically do
not generally need the intensive academic services provided by the UB
program and those services are not intended to be a reward for good
academic performance. In fact, section 402C(d)(3) of the HEA requires
that a determination be made that the student ``has a need for academic
support in order to pursue successfully a program of education beyond
secondary school,'' (emphasis added) to provide services to that
student.
We recognize that many students who are doing well in their
academic subjects may have additional needs related to social and
environmental issues. Those non-academic needs alone, however, are not
a basis on which students may be selected to participate in UB. The
TRIO Talent Search Program is designed to provide assistance to
students who have the potential for success at the postsecondary level,
but who need encouragement and other support to pursue a postsecondary
education.
Change: None.
Comment: Commenters expressed concern that the targeting of Upward
Bound on students with high academic risk for failure as indicated by
their grade point average is not supported by the previous national
evaluation of Upward Bound.
Discussion: We agree that recent evaluation findings suggest that
grade point average is an imperfect indicator of educational
expectations and of a student's likelihood to benefit from the UB
program. Nonetheless, we believe that a low grade point average
certainly is one of several possible indicators of a student's need for
academic support in order to pursue successfully a program of
postsecondary study. Recent research from the national UB program
evaluation and other sources (including The Condition of Education
2001, Indicator 24, which may be reviewed at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001072_3.pdf
) suggests another possible indicator of a
first-generation student's need for academic support. Specifically,
there is evidence that failure to take algebra (or higher) in grade
eight or nine may indicate a student's potential to benefit from UB or
similar programs.
Change: We have modified the priority to allow projects to count a
student as at high academic risk for failure if the student has not
completed pre-algebra, algebra, or geometry by the end of grade eight,
and (in cases in which the student is recruited early during grade
nine) if the student is not taking algebra or geometry in grade nine.
This criterion further grounds the priority in recent research and
gives UB projects a fourth option for identifying the 30 percent of new
students who must be at high academic risk for failure.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed priority would
remove the individual programs' flexibility and create a one-size-fits-
all approach that would damage UB's mission of helping needy students
gain admission to college.
Discussion: Within the parameters of the priority, programs will
continue to have flexibility in determining which students are served.
We believe that the priority will ensure that the students who receive
UB program services are those who most need those services. Under the
priority not less than 30 percent of the new participants must be
selected from those students who have a high academic risk for failure.
The remaining students will continue to be selected from among all
eligible
[[Page 55449]]
students based upon the discretion of the UB project staff.
Change: None.
Proposed Evaluation
Comment: One commenter supported including in the priority a
requirement to participate in the Department's evaluation of the UB
program. The remaining commenters opposed the proposed evaluation. The
objections to the proposed priority relating to the evaluation include
the following: (a) Several of the commenters stated that they believe
many colleges and universities would have reservations about approving
``human subjects standards'' in their internal review boards, if the
review does not demonstrate that members of the control group are
``done no harm;'' (b) other commenters stated that the control group
would not be a true control group, as a true control group would not be
referred to other support services and any UB project that does not
refer needy students to another student support program or who would
try to insulate them from other available academic resources would be
unethical and inhuman; and (c) many commenters expressed concern about
what they thought would be the undue burden and cost if UB projects
were required to recruit twice the number of eligible students to be
served, work with twice the number of parents, and were required to
encourage students to fill out the forms when the students know that
they stand only a 50 percent chance of getting selected.
Discussion: We do not share the commenters' concerns about the
burdens associated with the evaluation. All plans for data collection
and random assignment will be submitted to the evaluator's
Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for their approval to minimize the burden to students and
protect the rights of all human subjects. Because the evaluation will
be conducted by the Institute of Education Sciences and its contractor,
institutions of higher education will not be required to obtain
internal review board approval. The UB program only has funds to serve
a small percent of the eligible low-income, first-generation students
in the U.S., so some eligible and potentially interested students will
not be served regardless of whether a random assignment evaluation
occurs.
We did not intend to suggest that control group students would be
prohibited from receiving services from other programs. For ethical,
legal, and practical reasons, control group students will be free to
receive supplemental educational services from numerous other student
support programs. The evaluator will carefully measure the variety and
intensity of services received by all students in the evaluation in
order to interpret the impact of the UB program services, as opposed to
the gross impact of other college preparation programs in which
students may be involved. The question the evaluation will address is:
Does Upward Bound have a benefit, above and beyond the benefit of the
other services already available to eligible students applying to the
program?
We agree with the commenters that there will likely be some
additional burden on grantee staff, particularly during the first year
of the evaluation. Some grantees will have to increase their recruiting
efforts to meet not only any evaluation requirements, but also the new
requirements to focus the program on students who have a high academic
risk for failure. On the other hand, casting a wider net for applicants
also has significant advantages. It will likely raise the profile of
the UB program among eligible students. The extra recruiting required
for the evaluation is a one-time effort and seems unlikely to have a
lingering effect on program activities. The burden of the new data
collection will be borne primarily by the evaluator, not grantees, and
the evaluator will work with grantees to minimize any burdens as
required for IRB and OMB approval of data collection plans. Any
outreach or publicity to obtain enough applications to create the
control group will build on grantees' current admission procedures or
those proposed as a condition of receiving 2007 grants. As required for
IRB and OMB approval of data collection plans, the evaluator will seek
informed and written consent from a parent or guardian before a student
is included in the evaluation.
Change: None.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through
a notice in the Federal Register. A notice soliciting applications
for new awards for the UB program for fiscal year 2007 is published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
Priority
Absolute Priority: Upward Bound Program Participant Selection and
Evaluation
This priority supports regular Upward Bound Program projects that--
1. Select first-time participants from otherwise eligible students
who have completed the 8th grade but not the 10th grade in secondary
school, except a student who has previously participated in a regular
Upward Bound project may be selected notwithstanding the student's
grade level;
2. Select not less than 30 percent of all first-time participants
from students who have completed the 8th grade but not the 9th grade in
secondary school and who have a ``high academic risk for failure.''
``High academic risk for failure'' refers to otherwise eligible
students who--
a. Have not achieved at the proficient level on State assessments
in reading/language arts for grade eight;
b. Have not achieved at the proficient level on State assessments
in math for grade eight;
c. Have a grade point average of 2.5 or less (on a 4.0 scale) for
the most recent school year for which grade point averages are
available; or
d. Have not completed pre-algebra, algebra, or geometry by the end
of grade eight, and (in cases in which students are recruited early
during grade nine) are not taking algebra or geometry in grade nine.
To meet this priority, an applicant also must agree to conduct its
Upward Bound project in a manner consistent with the evaluation that
the Department plans to conduct for the Upward Bound Program. An
applicant also must agree, if selected to participate in the
evaluation, to--
1. Recruit at least twice as many eligible new students in project
year 2007-2008 as the grantee plans to serve in its project. Of that
larger pool of eligible new students, not less than 30 percent must
have completed the 8th grade but not the 9th grade in secondary school
and meet the definition of ``high academic risk for failure;''
2. Refrain from admitting new students into the Upward Bound
project for project year 2007-2008 until the evaluator has completed
its data collection and random assignment for those students;
3. Agree that eligible new students will be assigned randomly by
the evaluator either to participate in Upward Bound or to serve as part
of a control group (not in Upward Bound); and
4. Agree that a student assigned to serve as part of a control
group will not be subsequently selected to participate in Upward Bound.
This priority does not apply to the Veterans Upward Bound projects
and Upward Bound Math/Science projects.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of final priority has been reviewed in accordance with
Executive
[[Page 55450]]
Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the
potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the notice of final priority
are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have
determined are necessary for administering this program effectively and
efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this notice of final priority, we have determined
that the benefits of the proposed priority justify the costs.
We have also determined that this action does not unduly interfere
with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive
order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 645.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this
Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.047A Upward Bound
Program)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-13.
Dated: September 19, 2006.
James F. Manning,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 06-8101 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P