The
TRIO history can be divided into three decades.
The first decade, the decade of the sixties, is
the decade of the creation of TRIO. TRIO began,
not with the Higher Education Act, but with the
Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the original
War on Poverty statute, which created the Upward
Bound program.
That was followed by the original Higher
Education Act of 1965, which created the Talent
Search program. We then had the first
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, of
which we've now had six. The first
reauthorization was in 1968, at which time
Special Services was created. By 1968, the
original TRIO programs had been created - Upward
Bound, Talent Search and Special Services. Also
in 1968, Upward Bound was transferred out of the
Office of Economic Opportunity and into the
Higher Education Act.
The second reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act of 1972 created the Educational
Opportunity Centers. The 1970s could be called
the decade of continued expansion, starting with
the creation of the Educational Opportunity
Centers in 1972, and then in 1976, with the
staff and leadership training authority. By the
end of the seventies, most of the programs were
in place.
The critical decade for TRIO came in the
eighties, which can be characterized as the
decade of building permanence of the TRIO
programs.
The reauthorization of 1980 was particularly
important for the adoption of two key concepts
for the TRIO programs: first generation in
college and prior performance.
First generation in college is important in
defining the eligibility of students for the
TRIO programs, because it moved the programs in
a more inclusive direction in looking at the
origin and the impact of non-financial barriers
to access and success in postsecondary
education. And politically, it enabled the TRIO
program to build a broader coalition in
Congress, a coalition not just of poor people,
but a coalition of all of those who had not had
opportunities, or whose constituents had not had
opportunities for postsecondary education.
Prior performance is an even more important core
concept of TRIO, both philosophically and
politically. From a philosophical point of view,
prior performance means that TRIO programs are
not demonstration programs. They, in fact, are,
and should be, a permanent part of every
institution's student aid program.
In the same way that one doesn't close down
easily an institution's financial aid program,
one would not close down its TRIO program. These
two programs are complementary programs aimed at
a full range of bar-to-equal opportunity in
postsecondary education. And they should be
co-equals in terms of their status and in terms
of their permanence in higher education.
So prior performance meant from its
philosophical point of view that the TRIO
programs are an integral part of student aid and
that ideally, everywhere that student financial
aid exists, so also should the full range of
TRIO programs and services exist.
Politically, prior performance has facilitated
the development of an extensive cadre of
experienced TRIO Professionals. These people,
over time, have gained political sophistication
and experience that has enabled them to become a
nationwide network of people able to protect and
expand TRIO, as well as speak to and work for
the broader agenda of equal opportunity.
Having a group of professionals across the
country who have been able to persevere from
year to year, as opposed to having programs
uprooted every few years and moved from place to
place is politically indispensable.
The 1980 reauthorization was really a watershed,
in the sense of having five of the six programs
in place and being able to enact the two key
philosophical and political tenants of the TRIO
program, first generation and prior performance.
More recently, the fifth reauthorization of the
TRIO programs was in 1986, at which time the
final of the current array of programs was
created - the McNair Post-Baccalaureate
Achievement Program.
Thus, looking back a decade, it's easy to forget
that it took 22 years, from 1964 to 1986, to
construct the current array of TRIO programs.
The most recent reauthorization, in 1992, the
sixth reauthorization of the Higher Education
Act, added one more, or in effect, put an
exclamation point on one more important
dimension of the TRIO history, and that is to
put the TRIO programs in law rather than leaving
them largely to the administrative discretion of
the Department of Education.
When Congress passed the reauthorization of
1972, the TRIO programs in the law were one and
a half pages long. Today the TRIO programs are
11 pages long in the law. They haven't changed
that much in the 20 years between 1972 and 1992.
The only real change is to add the McNair
program.
What has changed is to increasingly elaborate
and to write into the law the administrative
conditions and administrative operations of the
TRIO programs - that is, to increasingly take
out of the discretion of the Department of
Education, previously the Office of Education,
how TRIO is to operate.
This action has served to shield the TRIO
program from the impact of changes of
administration, from changes in personnel within
the administration and from various new
enthusiasms of the administration as time goes
by. For example, in 1992, the concept of a base
grant was enacted, which stated that there would
be a certain base level of stability for
programs, that there would he a set aside of
funds to hire readers for the TRIO program to
ensure that there would be readers from outside
of the Department of Education, that there would
be a diverse and broad pool of readers selected
and that grant applications would be
rank-ordered in terms of their assessment.
All of those things would normally be found in
regulations, but in the TRIO programs, all of
these things are in the law. Therefore, TRIO
has, in effect, shielded itself from the
discretion and whims of the executive branch.
The twin transformations of the 1980s are, first
of all, that TRIO has become an institution.
TRIO programs are stable. They are continuous.
They are not subject to the whim of either
legislators or administrations.
In the second transformation, there was a move
from an odd collection of programs that came
from different places and different ideas into a
very cohesive set of programs that are
interlocking in their constituencies, in the
services that are offered and in the
administrative provisions that apply to all of
the programs.
The second transformation of the 1980s is the
growth in the political strength of the TRIO
programs. TRIO programs have come a long way in
terms of their political recognition. They've
come a long way in terms of the political
respect that they have, in terms of the
political stature they have, and fundamentally,
in terms of the political power they have. The
TRIO programs are on the Washington scene and
are not a constituency to be trifled with. They
are a source of political power on behalf of
their agenda and their programs. This is a
tremendous record of success and a proud
achievement.
But where do we go from here? The
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is
up in this coming Congress and the stakes are
very high. The Higher Education Act expires in
fiscal year 1998, but there is an automatic
extension in the law that will carry it through
fiscal year 1999, which means that academic year
1999-2000 is the first year that this
reauthorization will be in effect. If this
reauthorization is, again, for six years, it
will carry through fiscal year 2004.
The heart of the Higher Education Act, what's
going to be on the table, is Title IV - student
financial aid plus the TRIO programs.
Title IV makes up 97 percent of the money
appropriated under the Higher Education Act.
This amounts to making $42 billion available to
students in the current school year. About seven
million students are receiving Federal aid.
That's about 40+ percent of all students. Five
million of those students receive aid based on
financial need. The rest receive unsubsidized
loans. And the aid that students receive from
the Federal government is three quarters of all
of the aid available from all of the sources in
America. So if one were to add up all the money
from the colleges, from the states, from
charities, foundations three quarters of those
dollars, of all student aid in America, comes
from the Federal program.
This reauthorization is extremely important.
First of all, this is the first reauthorization
in history in which the Republicans will control
both houses of Congress. There was one
reauthorization in which the Republicans
controlled one house of Congress, in 1986, but
it was still the Democratic House that certainly
set the tone of that reauthorization. Now, we're
going to have both Houses of Congress controlled
by the Republicans.
The good news is that they're not going to
control both Houses by a very large majority So
the Republicans cannot impose their will on the
Democrats or on the President. They don't have
enough votes to break a filibuster in the
Senate. They don't have enough votes to override
a veto in the House or the Senate. So the only
legislation that's going to get enacted will be
bipartisan.
The bad news is that TRIO programs are either
the crown jewel of educational opportunity or
some of those failed programs of the sixties, as
some other people would think about them. To put
it even more starkly, these are not Republican
programs in their origin or in their
continuation. So it's hard to expect a lot of
sympathy for their future continuation.
The second piece of bad news is that the Members
of Congress who are going to control this
reauthorization in their staff are going to be
all new people. The Chairmen and, indeed, the
ranking minority members in most cases from all
the recent reauthorizations, have all left.
Congressman Bill Ford, the Chairman on the House
Subcommittee for the last three reauthorizations
retired. Congressman Tom Coleman, the ranking
minority member for the last two
reauthorizations also retired. Steve Gunderson
of Wisconsin, Jack Reed from Rhode Island - all
of them stalwarts on behalf of educational
opportunity have left the House and the House
Committee.
On the Senate side, Senator Claiborne Pell, who
chaired every reauthorization since 1972 has
retired. Senator Paul Simon, a former Chairman
of the Subcommittee on the House side and an
active member on the Senate side has retired.
Senator Nancy Kassebaum has retired. All of
these people and their brilliant and
distinguished staff have left Congress.
Senator James Jeffords is now the full Committee
Chairman on the Senate side. On the House side,
Congressman Howard McKeon of California will be
the subcommittee chairman. He has never gone
through a reauthorization, even as a member of
Congress, let alone as the chairman. And Dale
Kildee of Michigan will be his ranking Democrat.
He has been a member of the committee for
several reauthorizations, but never on the
subcommittee, and certainly never a ranking
member.
So there are many new people and a lot of new
leadership. Part of the political history of the
success of TRIO over the last 20+ years has been
that it has been the leadership of the committee
that has fostered and believed in and advocated
on behalf of the TRIO programs. This has been a
very important element in the success of the
TRIO programs.
In
addition to this environment in which there are
many new people, there are many issues
outstanding for this Congress to deal with in
terms of education. The new Republican Congress,
particularly the House, was so successful in the
last Congress that they didn't enact anything.
That means that there are several education
issues left over that are going to lap over into
this Congress. One will be the reauthorization
of the vocational and Adult Education Acts and
the whole idea of reforming and consolidating
job training.
The second item on the agenda will be the
reauthorization of IDEA, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, which also was
supposed to be done in the past Congress. This
is also left over. So, there are at least two
major education reauthorizations to be done
before higher education. And this will take the
attention of many of the same people, many of
the same Members of Congress, and many of the
same staff who would otherwise be paying
attention to higher education.
In addition to that, the Administration's
education initiative will focus on the tax
agenda, with the Hope scholarship and tax
credit, the tax deduction, the IRA for higher
education and the school construction tax
initiative.
So where does that leave the reauthorization? It
leaves the reauthorization with many
inexperienced people operating on a tight time
schedule with everything on the table. The best
outcome from this reauthorization for everyone
would be for Title IV in general and the TRIO
programs specifically to be extended without
change.
The TRIO programs have evolved to the point
where they are strong, stable and they work
well. They could always use more money but in
terms of the basic legislative structure, it's
in pretty good shape.
NOTE:
Thomas Wolanin is a Senior Associate at The
Institute for Higher Education Policy and
Adjunct Professor of Education Policy and
Political Science at George Washington
University, Washington, DC. This article was
adapted from a speech he made at the Council's
Board of Directors' annual meeting in December
1996.
