Can a private Texas college join the tuition equalization grant program if it is accredited by a different agency than public universities?

TX AG Opinion GA-0395: Does a private college need the same accreditation as public schools to join the tuition equalization grant program?

Plain-English summary

The tuition equalization grant (TEG) program lets the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board give grants to Texas residents who attend approved private colleges, based on financial need, to help close the gap between private and public tuition. The question was which private colleges the Board may approve. Education Code section 61.222 gives the Board two ways to approve a school. The first is for a school that is a "private or independent institution of higher education" as defined in section 61.003, a definition that requires the school to be a nonprofit, tax-exempt, and accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools or the Liaison Committee on Medical Education. The second is for a school that is located in Texas and meets "the same program standards and accreditation as public institutions of higher education as determined by the board."

The dispute, between Representative Jim Pitts and the Coordinating Board, turned on the word "same." Pitts read it to mean "identical." The Board suggested it could mean "comparable," "similar," or "equivalent," which would let it approve a college (Dallas Christian College) accredited by the Association for Biblical Higher Education, an agency the Board recognizes for some purposes but which does not accredit Texas public universities. The Attorney General sided with Pitts. Looking at the dictionary, a Fifth Circuit decision treating "same" and "identical" as synonyms, and the statute's history, the opinion concluded "same" means "identical to." The Legislature had changed the modifier from "comparable to" to "the same as" in Senate Bill 149 in 2001, which the opinion read as a deliberate move to restrict, not expand, the Board's approval authority. The opinion also pointed out that when the Legislature wants to let a program rely on any Board-recognized accrediting agency, it uses the defined term "recognized accrediting agency," which it did not do in section 61.222.

The bottom line: a private college accredited only by an agency that does not accredit public institutions of higher education does not meet "the same accreditation," so the Coordinating Board was not authorized to approve it for the TEG program.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

The TEG program statutes (Education Code chapter 61, subchapter F) and the definitions in section 61.003 have been amended several times since 2006. Anyone checking whether a particular private college qualifies for the program today should confirm the current text of sections 61.222 and 61.003 and the Board's current rules before relying on the 2006 analysis here.

Who this opinion affected (as of 2006)

The Higher Education Coordinating Board: The opinion told the Board it could not approve a private college for the TEG program based on accreditation by an agency that does not also accredit Texas public institutions, even an agency the Board recognizes for regulating private schools under subchapter G.

Private and independent colleges: It meant a school seeking TEG eligibility had to satisfy either the section 61.003 definition (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools or Liaison Committee on Medical Education accreditation, plus nonprofit and tax-exempt status) or hold accreditation identical to that of public institutions.

Students at those colleges: Students at a college that could not be approved were not eligible for tuition equalization grants tied to that school.

Common questions

What is the tuition equalization grant program?
A state grant program, run by the Higher Education Coordinating Board, that gives need-based grants to Texas residents at approved private colleges to help offset the difference between private and public tuition.

Why did the word "same" matter so much?
Because section 61.222's second approval test requires a private college to meet "the same program standards and accreditation as public institutions." Reading "same" as "identical" excludes colleges accredited only by agencies that do not accredit public universities; reading it as "comparable" would have let more colleges in.

Did the 2001 amendment change the outcome?
The opinion treated it as decisive. The Legislature replaced "comparable to" with "the same as" in Senate Bill 149, and the AG presumed that change was meant to narrow the Board's authority, not leave it the same.

Could the Board rely on an accrediting agency it recognizes for other purposes?
Not for the TEG program. The opinion noted the Legislature uses the defined term "recognized accrediting agency" when it wants a program to accept Board-designated agencies, and it did not use that term in section 61.222.

Background and statutory framework

The TEG program is governed by Education Code chapter 61, subchapter F. Section 61.221 authorizes need-based grants to Texas residents enrolled at approved private Texas colleges, and section 61.227 frames the grant as equalizing the difference between private and public tuition (Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §§ 61.221-.230, 61.221, 61.227 (Vernon 1996 & Supp. 2004-05)). Section 61.222 governs approval and offers two alternative tests: the section 61.003(15) definition of a "private or independent institution of higher education" (requiring organization under the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act, tax exemption under Tex. Const. art. VIII, § 2 and 26 U.S.C. § 501, and accreditation by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools or the Liaison Committee on Medical Education), or location in Texas plus "the same program standards and accreditation as public institutions of higher education" (Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §§ 61.222, 61.003(15) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05)).

Statutory construction follows legislative intent and the words' plain and common meaning, read in context with the statute as a whole (Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 311.011, 311.021, 311.023 (Vernon 2005); Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958 (Tex. 1999); Mitchell Energy Corp. v. Ashworth, 943 S.W.2d 436 (Tex. 1997); In re Canales, 52 S.W.3d 698 (Tex. 2001); RepublicBank Dallas, N.A. v. Interkal, Inc., 691 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1985); Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. 2001)). Dictionary usage and federal case law treat "same" and "identical" as synonyms (Miss. Poultry Ass'n v. Madigan, 31 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 1994)). When a statute is amended, courts presume the Legislature intended a change and give it effect (Act of May 3, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 144, § 1, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 296, 296; City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979); Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y. v. Axtell Co., 36 S.W.2d 715 (Tex. 1931); Gateley v. Humphrey, 254 S.W.2d 98 (Tex. 1952)). The defined term "recognized accrediting agency" (Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 61.003(13)) is used elsewhere when the Legislature wants Board-designated agencies to count, but not in section 61.222.

Citations

Statutes:

• Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 61.222 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05)
• Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §§ 61.221-.230, 61.221, 61.227 (Vernon 1996 & Supp. 2004-05)
• Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 61.003(15), (13) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05)
• Tex. Educ. Code Ann. ch. 61, subch. F, G; § 61.302(5), 61.303 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 311.011, 311.021, 311.023 (Vernon 2005)
• Tex. Const. art. VIII, § 2; 26 U.S.C. § 501
• 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 7.4(a)(1) (2005)
• Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act (Article 1396-1.01 et seq., Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes)
• Act of May 3, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 144, § 1, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 296, 296
• Act of May 22, 1971, 62d Leg., R.S., ch. 1024, art. 1, § 1, 1971 Tex. Gen. Laws 3072, 3131-33

Cases:

• Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958 (Tex. 1999)
• Mitchell Energy Corp. v. Ashworth, 943 S.W.2d 436 (Tex. 1997)
• In re Canales, 52 S.W.3d 698 (Tex. 2001)
• RepublicBank Dallas, N.A. v. Interkal, Inc., 691 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1985)
• Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. 2001)
• Miss. Poultry Ass'n v. Madigan, 31 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 1994)
• City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979)
• Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y. v. Axtell Co., 36 S.W.2d 715 (Tex. 1931)
• Gateley v. Humphrey, 254 S.W.2d 98 (Tex. 1952)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/greg-abbott/ga-0395
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2006/ga0395.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain - the linked PDF is authoritative.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
GREG ABBOTT

February 6, 2006

The Honorable Jim Pitts
Chair, Committee on Appropriations
Texas House of Representatives
Post Office Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910

Raymund A. Paredes, Ph.D.
Commissioner of Higher Education
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Post Office Box 12788
Austin, Texas 78711-2788

Opinion No. GA-0395

Re: Whether section 61.222 of the Education Code authorizes the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to approve for participation in the tuition equalization grant program a private or independent college or university that does not have the same accreditation as public institutions of higher education (RQ-0374-GA)

Dear Representative Pitts and Commissioner Paredes:

You both ask about the proper interpretation of section 61.222 of the Education Code, which governs the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board's ("Coordinating Board" or "Board") authority to approve private and independent colleges and universities to participate in the tuition equalization grant program (the "TEG program" or "program"). See TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 61.222 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Representative Pitts asks whether section 61.222 authorizes the Coordinating Board to approve for participation in the TEG program a private or independent college or university that does not have the same accreditation as public institutions of higher education.[1] The Coordinating Board asks more specifically whether Dallas Christian College is eligible to participate in the program.[2]

The TEG program is governed by chapter 61, subchapter F of the Education Code. See id. §§ 61.221-.230 (Vernon 1996 & Supp. 2004-05). Section 61.221 establishes the program:

In order to provide the maximum possible utilization of existing educational resources and facilities within this state, both public and private, the coordinating board is authorized to provide tuition equalization grants to Texas residents enrolled in any approved private Texas college or university, based on student financial need, but not to exceed a grant amount of more than that specified in the appropriation by the legislature.

Id. § 61.221 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Under the TEG program, a student at a private college or university who makes a showing of financial need is eligible to receive a grant to equalize the difference between tuition at the private institution and the tuition at public colleges and universities. See id. § 61.227.

Only a Texas resident enrolled at an approved private college or university may receive a grant. See id. § 61.221. Section 61.222 governs the Coordinating Board's approval authority:

The coordinating board shall approve only those private or independent colleges or universities that are private or independent institutions of higher education as defined by Section 61.003 or are located within this state and meet the same program standards and accreditation as public institutions of higher education as determined by the board.

Id. § 61.222.

We understand from your letters that public institutions of higher education in Texas are accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools[3] and that certain specialized programs at public institutions of higher education, like a law, medical, or nursing school, are accredited by other accrediting agencies, like the American Bar Association, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, or the National League of Nursing.[4] Dallas Christian College, the subject of the Coordinating Board's query, is not accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools but is accredited by the Association for Biblical Higher Education, an accrediting agency designated as recognized by the Coordinating Board under the statutory provisions that authorize the Board to regulate private postsecondary educational institutions.[5]

In construing section 61.222 of the Education Code, we must give effect to the legislature's intent. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 311.021, .023 (Vernon 2005); Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958, 960 (Tex. 1999); Mitchell Energy Corp. v. Ashworth, 943 S.W.2d 436, 438 (Tex. 1997). To do so, we must construe it according to its plain language. See In re Canales, 52 S.W.3d 698, 702 (Tex. 2001); RepublicBank Dallas, N.A. v. Interkal, Inc., 691 S.W.2d 605, 607-08 (Tex. 1985). We must also construe section 61.222 in context, considering the statute as a whole and in light of other statutes that govern the Coordinating Board. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 311.011(a) (Vernon 2005) (words and phrases to be read in context); Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486, 493 (Tex. 2001) ("[W]e must always consider the statute as a whole rather than its isolated provisions. We should not give one provision a meaning out of harmony or inconsistent with other provisions, although it might be susceptible to such a construction standing alone.") (citations omitted).

According to its plain language, section 61.222 requires the Coordinating Board to approve only those institutions that satisfy either of two alternate sets of criteria. First, it must approve "those private or independent colleges or universities that are private or independent institutions of higher education as defined by Section 61.003." TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 61.222 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Section 61.003(15) provides as follows:

(15) "Private or independent institution of higher education" includes only a private or independent college or university that is:

(A) organized under the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act (Article 1396-1.01 et seq., Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes);

(B) exempt from taxation under Article VIII, Section 2, of the Texas Constitution and Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. Section 501); and

(C) accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools or the Liaison Committee on Medical Education.

Id. § 61.003(15) (emphasis added). As the Coordinating Board notes, because the college it asks about is not accredited by either entity listed in section 61.003(15)(C), the Coordinating Board may not approve the college for participation in the program based on this first set of criteria.[6]

Under the second set of criteria, the Coordinating Board shall approve "those private or independent colleges or universities that . . . are located within this state and meet the same program standards and accreditation as public institutions of higher education as determined by the board." Id. § 61.222 (emphasis added). Unlike the first set of criteria, the second set of criteria does not require that the college be organized as a nonprofit or exempt from taxation. Rather, to be eligible for approval under the second set of criteria, the college or university must be located in Texas and meet the same program standards and accreditation as public institutions of higher education. See id.

Your letters indicate that you disagree about the meaning of the term "same." In essence, Representative Pitts construes "same" to mean "identical."[7] On the other hand, the Coordinating Board suggests that "same" may mean "comparable," "similar," or "equivalent."[8] As it is not defined by statute and is not a term of art, we must construe the term "same" according to its common meaning. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 311.011 (Vernon 2005). Dictionary definitions include the terms "identical" and "equivalent" as synonyms of "same," see WEBSTER'S NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 1040 (1990), and we have not located any Texas case law defining the term. According to a federal case regarding regulatory standards, "although the word 'same' is susceptible of conveying several meanings - possibly even equivalency - 'same' and 'identical' are synonyms and are treated as such in common usage." Miss. Poultry Ass'n v. Madigan, 31 F.3d 293, 300 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1122-23, 2007 (1981)).

To the extent the term "same" may convey multiple meanings and therefore be ambiguous, we note that in 2001 the legislature amended section 61.222 in Senate Bill 149 to add the first set of criteria and to amend the language in what became the second set of criteria. In doing so, the legislature changed the modifying phrase "comparable to" to "the same . . . as." See Act of May 3, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 144, § 1, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 296, 296.[9] Clearly, the legislature intended to change the law, and we must give this change meaning. See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 681 (Tex. 1979) ("It is apparent that in amending the statute, the legislature intended some change in the existing law, and this court will endeavor to effect the change."); Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y. v. Axtell Co., 36 S.W.2d 715, 719 (Tex. 1931) (legislature presumed to have intended some change to existing law when amendment was enacted and effect must be given to amendment); accord Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0208 (2004) at 7; see also Gateley v. Humphrey, 254 S.W.2d 98, 101 (Tex. 1952) (holding that the fact that significant words are omitted from the reenactment or amendment of a statute "imports a conclusive presumption that the legislature intended to exclude the object theretofore accomplished by the abandoned words"); TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 311.023(1), (3), (5) (Vernon 2005) (in construing a statute a court may consider the statute's objectives, its legislative history, and the consequences of a particular construction). This amendment indicates that the legislature intended the phrase "the same . . . as" to mean "identical to" as opposed to "comparable to" or "equivalent to" or "similar to." Moreover, the substitution of "same" for "comparable" also indicates that the legislature intended to restrict rather than expand the Coordinating Board's authority to approve institutions.

Finally, this construction is consistent with chapter 61 as a whole. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 311.011(a) (Vernon 2005) (words and phrases to be read in context); Helena Chem. Co., 47 S.W.3d at 493 ("We should not give one provision a meaning out of harmony or inconsistent with other provisions, although it might be susceptible to such a construction standing alone."). Since chapter 61 was first enacted in 1971,[10] section 61.003, which defines chapter 61 terms, has included the term "recognized accrediting agency." TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 61.003(13) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).[11] That term means "the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and any other association or organization so designated by the board." Id. (emphasis added). If the legislature had intended section 61.222 to authorize the Coordinating Board to approve for participation in the TEG program colleges and universities accredited by an entity designated by the Board, it would have used the term "recognized accrediting agency," as it has done in statutes governing other programs.[12]

In sum, the phrase "same . . . as" in section 61.222 means "identical to" and section 61.222 does not broadly authorize the Coordinating Board to approve colleges and universities accredited by accrediting agencies that do not accredit public institutions of higher education. Thus, based on the facts about accreditation stated in your letters, we agree with Representative Pitt's conclusion that under section 61.222 "only [Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools] accredited institutions (or a specialized institution that is accredited by the same accrediting body as a specialized public institution) may participate" in the TEG program.[13] In answer to his specific question, section 61.222 does not authorize the Coordinating Board to approve for participation in the TEG program a private or independent college or university that does not have the same accreditation as public institutions of higher education. In answer to the Coordinating Board's question, a college that is accredited by an entity that does not accredit public institutions of higher education does not meet the same accreditation as public institutions of higher education and the Coordinating Board is not authorized to approve the college to participate in the TEG program.[14]

SUMMARY

Section 61.222 of the Education Code does not authorize the Higher Education Coordinating Board to approve for participation in the tuition equalization grant program a private or independent college or university that does not have the same accreditation as public institutions of higher education. A college that is accredited by an entity that does not accredit public institutions of higher education does not meet the same accreditation as public institutions of higher education and the Coordinating Board is not authorized to approve such a college to participate in the program.

Very truly yours,

GREG ABBOTT
Attorney General of Texas

BARRY R. MCBEE
First Assistant Attorney General

ELLEN L. WITT
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

NANCY S. FULLER
Chair, Opinion Committee

Mary R. Crouter
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

Footnotes

1. See Letter from Honorable Jim Pitts, Chair, Committee on Appropriations, Texas House of Representatives, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas, at 1 (Aug. 9, 2005) (on file with Opinion Committee, also available at http://www.oag.state.tx.us) [hereinafter Pitts Request Letter].

2. See Letter from Raymund A. Paredes, Ph.D., Commissioner of Higher Education, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas, at 1 (Aug. 12, 2005) (on file with Opinion Committee, also available at http://www.oag.state.tx.us) [hereinafter Coordinating Board Request Letter].

3. Pitts Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1; Coordinating Board Request Letter, supra note 2, at 3.

4. Pitts Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2 n.1; Coordinating Board Request Letter, supra note 2, at 3-4.

5. See Coordinating Board Request Letter, supra note 2, at 2-3; see also TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. ch. 61, subch. G (Vernon 1996 & Supp. 2004-05) (authorizing the Coordinating Board to regulate private postsecondary institutions); id. § 61.302(5) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05) (defining "recognized accrediting agency" as "an association or organization so designated by rule of the board for the purposes of this subchapter"), 61.303 (exempting from Coordinating Board regulation "an institution which is fully accredited by a recognized accrediting agency"); 19 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 7.4(a)(1) (2005) (listing recognized accrediting agencies). We gather from the Coordinating Board's letter that the Association for Biblical Higher Education does not accredit Texas public institutions of higher education.

6. See Coordinating Board Request Letter, supra note 2, at 2.

7. See Pitts Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2 ("The plain meaning of the statute is that only a [Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools] accredited institution (or a specialized institution that is accredited by the same accrediting body as a specialized public institution) may participate in the TEG program under Section 61.222.").

8. See Coordinating Board Request Letter, supra note 2, at 2-3 (suggesting that section 61.222 may authorize the Coordinating Board to approve for participation in the TEG program a college that is accredited by an accrediting agency that the Board has designated as a recognized accrediting agency under Education Code, chapter 61, subchapter G).

9. Senate Bill 149 amended section 61.222 as follows: The coordinating board shall approve only those private or independent colleges or universities that are private or independent institutions of higher education as defined by Section 61.003 or are located within this state and meet the same program standards and accreditation as public institutions of higher education as determined by the board. Act of May 3, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 144, § 1, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 296, 296.

10. See Act of May 22, 1971, 62d Leg., R.S., ch. 1024, art. 1, § 1, 1971 Tex. Gen. Laws 3072, 3131-33.

11. The term "recognized accrediting agency" is also used in subchapter G of chapter 61. In subchapter G, the term has its own definition that applies only for purposes of that subchapter. See TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 61.302(5) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05) ("'Recognized accrediting agency' means an association or organization so designated by rule of the board for the purposes of this subchapter."). The Coordinating Board has designated accrediting agencies under this authority in rule 7.4. See 19 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 7.4(a)(1) (2005). A recognized accrediting agency designated by the Coordinating Board under subchapter G is not necessarily a recognized accrediting agency under section 61.003(13). However, in some cases board rules implementing other programs reference the subchapter G rules to designate recognized accrediting agencies. See, e.g., id. §§ 21.2051(5), .2083(9).

12. See, e.g., TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 51.602(5) (Vernon 1996) ("'Institution of higher education' means a public institution of higher education as defined by Subdivision (8) of Section 61.003 of the Education Code or a private college or university that issues degrees in this state and is accredited by a recognized accrediting agency as defined by Section 61.003 of this code.") (Engineering and Science Recruitment Fund), 56.161(4) ("'Institution' means an institution of higher education, as defined by Section 61.003 of this code, or a private college or university that is located in this state and is accredited by a recognized accrediting agency, as defined by Section 61.003 of this code.") (Minority Doctoral Incentive Program), 61.801(2) ("'Public or private institution of higher education' means an institution of higher education or a private college or university accredited by a recognized accrediting agency.") (Texas Partnership and Scholarship Program).

13. Pitts Request Letter, supra note 1, at 3, as clarified by Letter from Honorable Jim Pitts, Chair, Committee on Appropriations, Texas House of Representatives, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas (Sept. 9, 2005) (on file with Opinion Committee).

14. The Coordinating Board is concerned that excluding from the TEG program a college accredited by an accrediting agency that the Board has designated as a recognized accrediting agency under subchapter G of chapter 61 of the Education Code could be considered unreasonable. See Coordinating Board Request Letter, supra note 2, at 4; see also notes 5 & 11 supra. However, the TEG program is established and governed under subchapter F of chapter 61. The legislature has not used the term "recognized accrediting agency" in subchapter F. Moreover, in section 61.222 the legislature has expressly required that a college have the same accreditation as public institutions of higher education to participate in the program.