Bound for nowhere

Our past stories sung its praises, but they didn’t have to – the statistics told the same story. Upward Bound, a government-created, national education program, was doing great work. It took high school students from low-income families, who would be the first in their families to attend college, and brought them to a University to introduce them to college through visits, tours and coursework.

And then it was revealed only recently that the program would not be continued next year. The reasons were unfortunate. The federal government created a statute that required the program to accept double the number of students it had room for, but randomly assign half of those students to a “control” group, who would receive no benefits nor truly participate in the program but would nevertheless be asked to update researchers on their education status during subsequent years. The purpose was, ostensibly, to measure how students in Upward Bound, all other things being equal, did in comparison to students who did not participate.

IU, specifically Edwardo Rhodes, vice president of Precollegiate Initiatives and Retention, found the statute unacceptable and chose not to apply to renew their grant. And even though the government eventually dropped their provision to create a “control” group, it was only dropped after the deadline for grant renewal requests, and thus IU found itself with its hands tied.

What the federal study would have accomplished isn’t quite clear. Upward Bound has a 40-year history, in which it has been proven that more than 90 percent of participants go on to college. Rhodes agrees, and believes there was plenty of existing information already available. Even had the government needed more information, there were better ways to do it than to select a student to be specifically denied the chance to participate and then have the audacity to ask that he provide regular updates on how he is doing. That’s like watching someone fall off the side of a boat to see if that person can swim.

But we can’t help but notice that because of IU’s decision, no one will be participating in the program, when there would otherwise have been some. The central question is whether it’s worth some 70 students receiving help, if that means another 70 will have to walk around consciously aware that they have been prevented the opportunity.

To say that it isn’t worthwhile is quite a stand on principle. Unfortunately, it’s the students who have to pay for this sacrifice. IU cited its concern that the program might, for example, potentially split siblings into the control and experimental groups (one sibling would be able to participate, the other would not), which would indeed be a sad thing. But isn’t that better than them both not being able to participate?

Unfortunately, there’s no right answer in this scenario. The government provision was sloppy and insensitive, and IU’s reaction centered more on principle than practicality, however forced their hand was. There were only tough decisions to be made, but we can’t help but feel that in IU’s decision, the best became the enemy of the good. For now, the die has been cast, and we’ll have to wait until subsequent years to see the program return.