**Exhibit 34.2****Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment ofCompliance With Applicable Servicing Criteria, as Master Servicer, that KeyBank NationalAssociation (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for student loans securitized in 2006 (the“Platform”), except for the instances of material noncompliance described therein, as of and forthe period December 7, 2006 through December 31, 2006, and except for criteria 1122 (d)(1)(iii),1122 (d)(2)(ii), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(iv), 1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122 (d)(3)(iv), 1122 (d)(4)(i), 1122 (d)(4)(x), 1122 (d)(4)(xi), 1122 (d)(4)(xii),1122 (d)(4)(xiii) and 1122 (d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to theactivities performed by them with respect to the Platform covered by this report. Management isresponsible for the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibilityis to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria based on our examination.Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the AmericanInstitute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about theCompany’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures aswe considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all ofthe individual asset backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of lessthan all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Companyprocessed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance withthe servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions andservicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Ourprocedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to orsubsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported bythe Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any othertransactions. Although the Company is responsible for assessingcompliance with Sections 1122(d)(2)(vi),1122(d)(4)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(vi) and 1122(d)(4)(ix) of Regulation AB, there were no servicing activities performedby the Company during the period December 7, 2006 through December 31, 2006 that required theseservicing criteria to be complied with. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basisfor our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliancewith the servicing criteria.Our examination disclosed the following material noncompliance with servicing criteria1122(d)(4)(viii) applicable to the Company’s Platform covered by this report during the periodDecember 7, 2006 through December 31, 2006. Servicing criteria 1122(d)(4)(viii) — Recordsdocumenting collection efforts are maintained during the period a pool asset is delinquent inaccordance with the transaction agreements. Such records are maintained on at least a monthlybasis, or such other period specified in the transaction agreements, and describe the entity’sactivities in monitoring delinquent pool assets
 

 
including, for example, phone calls, letters and payment rescheduling plans in cases wheredelinquency is deemed temporary (e.g., illness or unemployment).The information in the Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria inItem 2 of Appendix B (i.e., remediation procedures) is presented by the Company for informationpurposes. Such information has not been subjected to the procedures applied in our examination ofmanagement’s assertion as described above, and accordingly, we express no opinion on it.In our opinion, except for the material noncompliance described in the third paragraph,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as ofand for the period December 7, 2006 through December 31, 2006 for the student loan Platform isfairly stated, in all material respects.          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP  Cleveland, Ohio