TRIO and upward bound: History, programs, and issues--past, present, and future

Journal of Negro Education, The, Fall 1998 by McElroy, Edward J, Armesto, Maria

This article briefly traces the history of the TRIO programs and provides evidence of their effectiveness in closing educational opportunity gaps in U.S. society. It also examines the criteria for participation in TRIO programs, focusing on the evolving definitions of educational disadvantagement relative to TRIO eligibility. In looking at TRIO's Upward Bound program specifically, the article presents a synopsis of over 30 years of research and program evaluations of this initiative, along with recommendations for improving Upward Bound's effectiveness.

A HiSTORY OF THE TRIO PROGRAMS

In August 1964, in the midst of his administration's "War on Poverty," President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act. This legislation gave rise to the Office of Economic Opportunity and its Special Programs for Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds or, as they have since become more commonly known, the nation's TRIO programs. As part of this statute, the first TRIO initiative, Upward Bound, came into existence, followed soon thereafter by Talent Search, which was created by the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965. When the HEA was first reauthorized in 1968, it established TRIO's Student Support Services program and transferred all of TRIO from the Office of Economic Opportunity to the Office of Higher Education Programs. When the HEA was reauthorized in 1972, the fourth TRIO program, Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC), was created. The expansion of TRIO's reach and outreach continued in 1976 with the creation of the TRIO Staff and Leadership Training Authority (SLTA). The fifth TRIO program, the Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program, was created in 1986. Most recently, in 1990, the U.S. Department of Education created the Upward Bound Math/ Science Program, which is administered under the same regulations as other Upward Bound programs.

TRIO Participation Criteria

According to Wolanin (1996), the reauthorization of the HEA in 1980 was particularly important, politically and philosophically, for the adoption of two key concepts regarding eligibility for participation in TRIO programs. The first of these was consideration of students' status as the first in their families to pursue higher education (first-generation-college students or candidates). The second was consideration of students' prior performance. The first-generation-college criterion was important as a determinant of educational disadvantagement, Wolanin notes, because it shifted TRIO eligibility requirements in a more encompassing direction by looking at the origin and impact of nonfinancial barriers to access and success in postsecondary education. Politically, this new stance empowered TRIO advocates to build a comprehensive coalition in Congress, not just of elected officials whose constituents were poor people but of those whose constituents had been denied opportunities for or otherwise deterred from postsecondary education. Regarding the prior performance criterion, Wolanin maintains that it is "an even more important core concept of TRIO, both philosophically and politically" (p. 1). Philosophically, he contends, this focus means that TRIO programs are not demonstration programs; rather, they are "an integral part of student aid" (p. 1). Politically, Wolanin states, "prior performance has facilitated the development of an extensive cadre of experienced TRIO professionals who have gained a political sophistication and experience that has enabled them to become a nationwide network of people able to protect and expand TRIO" (p. 1).

Much controversy has been generated over the past few decades about definitions of educational disadvantagement relative to TRIO program eligibility. The first group to evaluate Upward Bound, the Research Triangle Institute (RTI), was able to circumvent this controversy by selecting a definition that describes these individuals as members of groups that historically have been underrepresented in higher education and that are below national averages on educational indices (Kendrick & Thomas, 1970). According to Levin (1986), pupils who are defined as "educationally disadvantaged" lack the home and community resources that enable them to succeed in conventional educational settings. Due to poverty, racial/ ethnic and cultural distinctions, or linguistic abilities, the educationally disadvantaged have been shown to have low academic achievement and/or to drop out of the educational pipeline at high rates and at early stages. Ordinarily, he maintains, these students are found among the economically disadvantaged, racial/ ethnic minority groups, and new immigrant and non-English-speaking populations.

Amos and Grambs (1968) described the educationally disadvantaged as "the products of a culture that has not provided them with the motivation, opportunity, experiences, and relationships that will enhance their chances of competing successfully with their fellow citizens in all phases of life" (p. 1). However, Thomas (1970) is critical of this definition because it im lies that the cultures of racial/ethnic minorities in the United states, unlike those of the European American majority, are the reasons for the former groups' disproportionately low-income status or unequal opportunity. As Thomas contends: