Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Study of Financial Aid Supports for GEAR UP Students
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Education wants to check if the financial help they give to students in the GEAR UP program is working well. They are asking people to share their thoughts about it to make sure it's useful and not too hard to do.
Summary AI
The Department of Education is proposing a new information collection as part of their study on financial aid supports for GEAR UP students. This study is necessary to evaluate the scholarship component of the GEAR UP program, which aims to help students from high-poverty schools prepare for and succeed in college. Interested parties are invited to submit comments until March 12, 2021, to help the Department ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of these information collection requirements. The Department is particularly interested in feedback on the necessity, timeliness, burden, and quality of the information collected.
Abstract
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document titled "Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Study of Financial Aid Supports for GEAR UP Students" is a notice from the U.S. Department of Education. It introduces a proposal for a new information collection effort aimed at evaluating the scholarship component of the GEAR UP program. GEAR UP, which stands for Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, was established to help students from high-poverty middle and high schools prepare for college by providing scholarships and other supports.
General Summary
The Department of Education is inviting the public to comment on this proposed data collection, which they say will inform future enhancements to how GEAR UP grants are administered. The study seeks to gather insights into how different states implement scholarship practices under the program, particularly after changes were introduced with the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA).
Significant Issues or Concerns
One area of concern is whether the necessity and purpose of this information collection are clearly justified. The summary provides some context but lacks a comprehensive explanation of why this particular collection is pivotal for the Department's functions. Furthermore, the document introduces terms like "set-aside states" and "waiver states" without adequate immediate explanation, which could confuse readers who are not intimately familiar with GEAR UP or related policy changes.
The complexity of changes in the HEA reauthorization and their implications on GEAR UP are not elucidated in layman's terms, potentially leaving the general public unclear about the document's impact. Additionally, while the amount of time estimated for participants to complete the collection is stated as 95 burden hours, there is no breakdown or explanation, causing potential skepticism about this estimate's accuracy.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, particularly those involved in education policy or administration, this proposal could signal increased oversight and data-driven adjustments to the GEAR UP program. By evaluating how effectively scholarships are being distributed and utilized, the Department can potentially make more informed decisions that could benefit future students, especially those from low-income backgrounds.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For Students and Families: The outcome of this evaluation could directly affect the availability and administration of scholarships. For students in "set-aside states" versus "waiver states," understanding these terms' implications becomes important, as practices may vary significantly and affect their chances of receiving aid.
For State and Local Governments: These entities might experience changes in how they are expected to administer funds or could face pressure to align with best practices identified through this study. There may be resource implications if additional data collection or reporting is required.
For Policymakers and Educational Advocates: Insights from this study could guide future legislative or programmatic adjustments to GEAR UP or similar programs, making it crucial to balance fairness and effectiveness in financial aid distribution.
Overall, this document indicates a step toward greater scrutiny and potential improvement of federal college access programs, emphasizing the need for public engagement during the comment period to ensure diverse viewpoints are considered in the study's design and execution.
Issues
• The overall purpose and necessity of the information collection are not clearly justified in the summary, leading to potential concerns about whether the collection is necessary for the Department's functions.
• The complexity of the language surrounding the changes in the HEA reauthorization and their impact on GEAR UP may make it difficult for the general public to fully understand the implications.
• The document refers to 'set-aside states' and 'waiver states' without clearly defining these terms immediately where they are introduced, which could cause confusion.
• The information about how states are carrying out the scholarship component requirements is said to be limited, suggesting a lack of oversight or data collection to date.
• There is no detailed explanation of the estimated burden of 95 annual hours, which might raise questions about its accuracy or the criteria used to derive it.
• The document does not address potential biases or fairness concerns in scholarship allocation among 'set-aside' and 'waiver' states.
• The robustness of the evaluation methodology for assessing scholarship practices and their effectiveness is not detailed, raising potential concerns about the reliability of study outcomes.