Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education: Background and Funding

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education: Background and Funding

ȱ
ž—?ȱ?˜›ȱ?‘Žȱ –™›˜ŸŽ–Ž—?ȱ˜?ȱ˜œ?œŽŒ˜—?Š›¢ȱ
?žŒŠ?’˜—ǱȱŠŒ”?›˜ž—?ȱŠ—?ȱž—?’—?ȱ
˜——’ŽȱǯȱŠ—?Š—ȱ
—?˜›–Š?’˜—ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱ™ŽŒ’Š•’œ?ȱ
Š¢ȱşǰȱŘŖŖŝȱ
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
   ǯŒ›œǯ?˜Ÿȱ
ŘŗŜśřȱ
ȱŽ™˜›?ȱ?˜›ȱ˜—?›Žœœ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

ž—?ȱ?˜›ȱ?‘Žȱ –™›˜ŸŽ–Ž—?ȱ˜?ȱ˜œ?œŽŒ˜—?Š›¢ȱ?žŒŠ?’˜—ǱȱŠŒ”?›˜ž—?ȱŠ—?ȱž—?’—?ȱ
ȱ
ž––Š›¢ȱ
The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) supports projects to
encourage innovative reform and expand education opportunities to underrepresented groups.
This report describes the historical context leading to the establishment of the Fund for
Improvement of Postsecondary Education, provisions governing the program, and the variety of
projects funded by FIPSE. As part of the Higher Education Act (HEA), FIPSE would likely be
part of any HEA reauthorization in the 110th Congress. This report will be updated to reflect
major legislative action on FIPSE reauthorization.

˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

ž—?ȱ?˜›ȱ?‘Žȱ –™›˜ŸŽ–Ž—?ȱ˜?ȱ˜œ?œŽŒ˜—?Š›¢ȱ?žŒŠ?’˜—ǱȱŠŒ”?›˜ž—?ȱŠ—?ȱž—?’—?ȱ
ȱ
˜—?Ž—?œȱ
Background ............................................................................................................................... 1
FIPSE Provisions and Projects Funded..................................................................................... 1
Funding History ........................................................................................................................ 3
Legislative Action in the 110th Congress................................................................................... 4

Š‹•Žœȱ
Table 1. FIPSE Funding, 2001-2008; Including FIPSE-Specific Funding and
Congressionally Directed Awards ................................................................................................ 4

˜—?ŠŒ?œȱ
Author Contact Information ............................................................................................................ 4

˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

ž—?ȱ?˜›ȱ?‘Žȱ –™›˜ŸŽ–Ž—?ȱ˜?ȱ˜œ?œŽŒ˜—?Š›¢ȱ?žŒŠ?’˜—ǱȱŠŒ”?›˜ž—?ȱŠ—?ȱž—?’—?ȱ
ȱ
ince its inception over 30 years ago, the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary
Education (FIPSE) has funded projects to encourage innovative reform and expand
S educational opportunities to underrepresented groups. Through grants under this program,
institutions of higher education (IHEs) have developed programs to improve teaching and
curriculum. FIPSE was created by the Education Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-318) as an
amendment to the Higher Education Act (HEA).1
ŠŒ”?›˜ž—?ȱ
In 1967, the Carnegie Foundation Commission on Higher Education’s Quality and Equality: New
Levels of Federal Responsibility for Higher Education proposed an independent federal agency, a
national foundation, to encourage experimental development in higher education. A 1971 report
by the Newman Task Force, Report on Higher Education, also favored federal actions to support
innovation in higher education.2
College enrollments greatly increased in the decade leading up to passage of the Education
Amendments of 1972. This was attributable to several factors including the baby boom
generation reaching college age, the civil rights movement, and the expanded student aid
provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-329).3 As the college student population
became increasingly diverse, issues of access and affordability grew. With the passage of the
1972 Amendments to the HEA, the debate over assistance to students versus institutional aid for
funding higher education was settled in favor of aid to students in the form of Basic Educational
Opportunity Grants (BEOG). FIPSE, a small program to improve postsecondary education, was a
remnant of earlier proposals for a foundation to support innovation in education. FIPSE was
created in part to help revitalize a traditional and less inclusive higher education system.
 ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱŠ—?ȱ›˜“ŽŒ?œȱž—?Ž?ȱ
As authorized by the HEA, FIPSE supports innovative projects to achieve a variety of purposes.
These include efforts to
• encourage the reform and improvement of postsecondary education and provide
equal educational opportunity for all;
• create institutions and programs offering new paths to career and professional
training and new combinations of academic and experimental learning;
• establish institutions and programs based on communications technology;
• carry out changes in the internal structure and operations in postsecondary
educational institutions to clarify priorities and purposes;
• design and introduce cost-effective methods of instruction and operation;

1 P.L. 92-318, Title III, § 404.
2 For background on the 1972 Amendments to HEA and proposals for an innovation entity in higher education, see
Lawrence E. Gladieux and Thomas R. Wolanin, Congress and the Colleges: the National Politics of Higher Education
(Lexington, MA: Heath and Co., 1976), pp. 50-54.
3 Virginia B. Smith et al., Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education: The Early Years (Washington, D.C.:
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2002), p. 1.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗȱ

ž—?ȱ?˜›ȱ?‘Žȱ –™›˜ŸŽ–Ž—?ȱ˜?ȱ˜œ?œŽŒ˜—?Š›¢ȱ?žŒŠ?’˜—ǱȱŠŒ”?›˜ž—?ȱŠ—?ȱž—?’—?ȱ
ȱ
• introduce institutional reforms to expand opportunities for individuals to enter
and reenter institutions of higher education and pursue programs of study tailored
to their needs;
• introduce reforms in graduate education, in the structure of academic professions,
and the recruitment and retention of faculties; and
• create new institutions and programs for examining skills and awarding
credentials, and reform current institutional practices relating to credentialing.4
A National Board composed of 15 members and a Director appointed by the Secretary of
Education serve in an advisory capacity to the Secretary. Members serve for overlapping three-
year terms and represent public interest groups, including students and the education field. Those
from education constitute a minority of the Board. Selection to the Board is based on an
individual’s ability “to contribute an important perspective on priorities for improvement in
postsecondary education and strategies of educational and institutional change.” The Board
advises the Secretary on the preparation of grant competitions and the means of evaluating,
disseminating, and adapting demonstrated improvements in postsecondary education.5
To achieve the goals set forth in its legislation, FIPSE awards grants that support “exemplary,
locally developed projects that are models for innovative reform and improvement in
postsecondary education.”6 The FIPSE National Board, along with the Secretary, establishes
funding competitions, priorities, and procedures for granting awards. Because FIPSE defines
higher education broadly, applicants for its discretionary grants and contracts include not only
IHEs but a variety of public and private nonprofit institutions and agencies offering education
after high school. These can include technical and business schools, testing agencies, professional
associations, cultural institutions, and student groups.7 Awards are typically three years in
duration but some may be five-year grants.
FIPSE supports projects that define a widely felt need in higher education, present a strategy for
meeting the need, and also demonstrate the ability to implement the strategy. Seed money from
FIPSE promotes innovative educational reforms for specific local problems identified by the
grant applicants. Funded projects should have the potential for greater dissemination and wider
influence. Currently, the discretionary grant programs supported by FIPSE include
• Comprehensive Program—Most awards are made through this program and
focus on projects that improve practices in higher education. Each year FIPSE
announces invitational priorities in the Federal Register for those areas of reform
and improvement that the Administration, working with the educational
community and FIPSE staff, has determined to be most critical. Applicants must
submit a preapplication to be eligible to submit a final application. The

4 20 U.S.C. § 1138.
5 20 U.S.C. § 1138a.
6 U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2008 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress, vol. II
(2007), p. R-60. (Hereafter cited as ED, FY2008 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to Congress.)
7 Operating Principles of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education. Available at http://www.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/ope/fipse/princp.html?exp=0.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řȱ

ž—?ȱ?˜›ȱ?‘Žȱ –™›˜ŸŽ–Ž—?ȱ˜?ȱ˜œ?œŽŒ˜—?Š›¢ȱ?žŒŠ?’˜—ǱȱŠŒ”?›˜ž—?ȱŠ—?ȱž—?’—?ȱ
ȱ
competitions generate numerous applications and, on average, 1 in 30 receives
funding, making FIPSE one of the most competitive federal grant programs.8
• International Consortia Programs—These programs include the
U.S./European Community Program, the North American Mobility Program
(United States, Mexico, and Canada), and the U.S./Brazil Program. ED and the
Russian Federation are currently discussing a US/Russia program. Funding
supports educational consortia of institutions from the different countries to
promote mutual understanding, and increase educational opportunities and
student and faculty exchanges.9
In 2002, FIPSE priorities were revised to reflect the Administration’s priorities in higher
education. While applicants may propose any project within the scope of the authorizing statute
(20 U.S. C. § 1138), the invitational priorities of particular interest to the Administration include
• improving the quality of K-12 teaching through improved teacher preparation;
• promoting reform in curriculum and instruction from college preparation through
graduate levels using student-centered or technology-mediated strategies;
• designing cost-effective methods of improving postsecondary instruction and
operations; and
• supporting ways of ensuring equal access to postsecondary education and
improving rates of retention and program completion especially for
underrepresented students.10
ž—?’—?ȱ ’œ?˜›¢ȱ
Over time, annual appropriations for FIPSE have been significantly increased by congressionally
directed funding for specific projects added during the appropriation process. In FY2005, FIPSE
received 418 congressionally directed, noncompetitive grants totaling $145.2 million.
Competitive grants received $17.4 million. This funding went to support continuing multi-year
grants. Consequently FIPSE cancelled its FY2005 competitive grant process.11
In FY2006, FIPSE received $21.9 million in appropriations. There were no congressionally
directed funds in the final FY2006 appropriation. During the FY2007 appropriation process, the
House proposed $90.1 million and the Senate proposed $80.5 million in congressionally directed
funds for FIPSE. With the passage P.L. 110-5, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2007, FIPSE was level funded at the FY2006 amount. Table 1 shows Presidential requests and
final total appropriations for FIPSE from FY2001 through FY2008, distinguishing FIPSE-specific
funding from congressionally directed funding.

8 U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2001 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress, vol. II
(2000), p. S-64.
9 ED, FY2008 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to Congress, p. R-60.
10 U.S. Department of Education, “Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education-Comprehensive Program
(Preapplications and Applications); Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003,” 67
Federal Register 79066 (December 27, 2002). The same priorities are in the FY2008 Justifications of Appropriation
Estimates to Congress, p.R-61-62.
11 As per telephone conversation with Levenia Ishmell at FIPSE, March 8, 2005.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řȱ

ž—?ȱ?˜›ȱ?‘Žȱ –™›˜ŸŽ–Ž—?ȱ˜?ȱ˜œ?œŽŒ˜—?Š›¢ȱ?žŒŠ?’˜—ǱȱŠŒ”?›˜ž—?ȱŠ—?ȱž—?’—?ȱ
ȱ
Table 1. FIPSE Funding, 2001-2008; Including FIPSE-Specific Funding and
Congressionally Directed Awards
Fiscal
Presidential
FIPSE-Specific
Congressionally
Total
Year
Request
Funding
Directed
Appropriations
2001 $31,200,000 $31,187,000 $115,500,000
$146,687,000
2002 $51,200,000 $31,222,000 $149,700,000
$180,922,000
2003 $39,138,000 $31,968,000 $139,100,000
$171,068,000
2004 $39,138,000 $32,000,000 $125,700,000
$157,700,000
2005 $32,000,000 $17,400,000 $145,200,000
$162,604,000
2006
$22,211,000
$21,989,000
$0
$ 21,989,000
2007
$21,989,000
$21,989,000
$0
$ 21,989,000
2008
$21,988,000
to be determined
to be determined
to be determined
Source: ED, Fiscal Year 2006 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress, vol. II (2005), p. S-60; ED,
Fiscal Year 2008 Justifications, p. R-61, and ED Fiscal Year 2008 President’s Budget Table (3/28/2007).
Ž?’œ•Š?’ŸŽȱŒ?’˜—ȱ’—ȱ?‘ŽȱŗŗŖ?‘ȱ˜—?›Žœœȱ
The HEA was last fully reauthorized by the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-
244). Though authorization expired in FY2003, authorization of the HEA has been extended three
times by P.L. 108-366, P.L. 109-81, and P.L. 109-238. Legislation relating to FIPSE may be part
of an overall reauthorization of the HEA. No legislation has, as yet, been proposed.

ž?‘˜›ȱ˜—?ŠŒ?ȱ —?˜›–Š?’˜—ȱ

Bonnie F. Mangan

Information Research Specialist
bmangan@crs.loc.gov, 7-8706

˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śȱ