![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.93125in" height="0.75in"}

1714 College Street • Columbia, SC • 29208

803-777-8134 • 803-777-7004 fax

> www.sc.edu/financialaid

September 5, 2007

Ms. Gail McLarnon

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street, N.W.

Room 8026

Washington, D.C. 20006

**Re: Docket ID ED-2007-OPE-0135**

Dear Ms. McLarnon:

The University of South Carolina, Columbia Campus, is pleased to submit
our comments regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the
Academic Competitiveness Grant Program and National Science and
Mathematics Access To Retain Talent Grant Program.

In my capacity as Compliance and Systems Implementation Manager, I have
worked extensively with these programs since their inception. My
comments are quite detailed and I would be pleased to respond to any
questions. I have also included several requests for clarification and
am looking forward to your responses.

Regards,

Jean Gasparato

University of South Carolina

1714 College Street

Columbia, SC 29208

***Academic Year Progression (§ 691.6(a), (b), and (c)) Page 44052***

We believe that Congress did not have the specific intent of imposing
the HEA defined concept of "academic year" on these programs, and that
an inordinate amount of time and energy has been expended in trying to
understand and work out the specifics. While we don't agree, we
understand the Department's conclusion that they have no option to
interpret "academic year" in any way that would be contrary to the
statutory requirements in the HEA. We request that the Department draft
a proposed amendment to replace "academic year" with "year" in all
appropriate instances of the law, unless they have knowledge that
Congress intended to impose this specific requirement. We believe that
the limitation to only one grant per year provides the control needed to
prevent over-distribution of the funds, and that monitoring eligibility
based on the strict interpretation of "academic year" is unnecessary.

We support the proposal to determine a student's academic year
progression based on the student's attendance in all ACG and National
SMART Grant eligible programs only at the institution in which the
student is currently enrolled. This proposal would allow an incoming
transfer student's academic year calculation to be based on the number
of credits accepted by the institution, not on all credits at all
schools, many of which may not transfer. Typically, only accepted
credits count towards the student's degree at their new institution, and
only accepted credits factor into a transfer student's Stafford Loan
grade level and Satisfactory Academic Progress measure. Consistency is
important in all aspects of financial aid and should be pursued whenever
possible -- it is reasonable and understandable to students, parents and
staff. Since students are limited to only one grant at each HEA defined
academic year level -- a concept which adds immeasurable complexity to
the administration of these grant programs -- and since a school cannot
award a grant at an academic year level below that which has been
received at a prior school, there is already a built-in control to
prevent excess distribution of these funds. We agree that this proposal
will reduce the administrative burden on schools.

We request clarification on how the Department defines the end of a
student's 4^th^ academic year when the student is enrolled in a four
year program of study.

Initial guidance was that a student ends his or her 4^th^ academic year
when he completes the mathematical end based on the school's credit
component of academic year. For a school with 30 credits in their
academic year, the 4^th^ year ended once the student completed 120
credits.

Later guidance extended a student's 4^th^ academic year to the point at
which the student has completed the number of credits required for
completion of their academic program as published in the institution's
official academic publications. We interpreted that to mean, for
example, that if a program required 139 credits, then the student is in
his or her 4^th^ academic year from 90 to 139 credits, and the 4^th^
academic year ends once the student completes 139 credits.

Guidance was then released stating that if the student reached the
number of credits for their program as published in the institution's
official academic publications, but needed additional credit hours to
fulfill the degree requirements, the student may receive National SMART
Grant (if otherwise eligible) during the term(s) in which the student
takes the additional credits. There was no context to this guidance, and
no discussion of a time component, only a number of credits component.
So, for example, if a student who had already been in school for 5
academic years, had changed majors several times, had already earned 160
credits, but still needed 30 more credits to get his degree in his
latest major -- chemistry, which requires 131 credits -- that student
could get the 4^th^ year SMART Grant if he was enrolled in courses
required of his new major and was otherwise eligible?

Most recently, a handout from the July NASFAA Conference seemed to imply
that the extension could only be if a student was in his or her 5^th^
academic year -- i.e. for a school with 30 credits in their academic
year definition, an otherwise eligible student could receive a National
SMART Grant through a 5^th^ academic year which ends at 150 credits.

Please provide specific guidance on how an institution is to determine
when a student's 4^th^ academic year has expired, or if eligibility has
been expanded to a 5^th^ year, and provide examples. (This concept would
also apply to the 2^nd^ academic year for a two year program.)

***Transfer Student (§ 691.6(d)) Page 44052***

We agree with the concept of basing the calculation of academic year for
transfer students on only credits accepted by the institution for the
reasons cited above.

We support the codification of the preamble to the November 1, 2006,
final regulations which provide that an institution may estimate weeks
of instructional time for transfer students by linking the number of
accepted transfer credits to the credit or clock hours in the
institution's definition of academic year.

However, we cannot agree with the provision that institutions may not
include credit hours that were not earned in an ACG or National SMART
Grant eligible program (such as AP/IB credits, college credits earned
while in high school, etc), if these non-traditional credits are
accepted by the institution and used towards the student's progression
towards a degree. The requirement to exclude non-traditional credits,
even if accepted by the institution, is a recurring theme in the
proposal, and our opposition is discussed in the following sections.

We request clarification of the following transfer student scenario:

[Scenario]{.underline}: A student is a returning transfer student --
that is, the student attended our institution, left to attend another
institution, then transferred back to our institution. Such a student
already has credits earned at our institution, and a GPA established at
our institution. We have seen guidance on the treatment of entering
transfer students with the assumption that the student has no academic
record at the school to which they are transferring, but no clear
guidance for returning transfer students who already have an academic
record established at the school.

Regarding academic year progression: In a case such as this, is it
correct that the credit component of the academic year determination
should be based on the total number of transfer credits accepted plus
the credits already earned at our institution?

Regarding cumulative GPA calculation (if required): In a case such as
this, is it correct that the school should use the cumulative GPA used
per their normal institutional policies? For example, if the cumulative
GPA used by the institution per normal institutional policy is
calculated only for credits earned at the institution, and not accepted
transfer credits, should the institution use their institutional GPA for
determination of ACG2 or SMART eligibility for this returning transfer
student? Likewise, if a school, through their normal institutional
policy, calculates and uses a cumulative GPA that includes grades from
both credits earned at their institution and credits accepted for
transfer, should that school should use the combined GPA? Would the GPA
that is used be different for ACG vs. SMART?

While we recognize that *Transfer GPA -- ACG (§ 691.15(f)(1)* proposes
that all schools must calculate a 'hybrid GPA' consisting of grades from
accepted transfer credits plus grades from institutional credits when a
student advances to academic year two after transferring, we will
strongly oppose that proposal for reasons provided later.

***Alternative Methods for Determining Weeks of Instructional Time (§
691.6(e), (f), (g), and (h)) Page 44053***

We are pleased that the proposal offers alternatives for determining
weeks of instructional time for institutions with traditional academic
calendars. We appreciate the recognition that institutions vary greatly
in their structure and academic policies, and a singular definition
would be unworkable for many institutions.

We are especially supportive of the "credits-earned" alternative, which
is similar to the old "assumption method" discussed in GEN-06-18.
However, we oppose the blanket exclusion of credits not earned at a
postsecondary institution as part of an ACG or National SMART Grant
eligible program for all alternatives, as well as the loss of
flexibility to institute any of the alternative methods on a
case-by-case basis.

Non-traditional credits earned and accepted by a university are used in
determining a student's progression towards their degree. They are
generally used in determining a student's Federal Stafford Loan grade
level, their Satisfactory Academic Progress standing, their school
standing as a freshman, sophomore, etc. Excluding them in determining a
student's academic year standing for the ACG and National SMART Grant
programs creates a 'disconnect' between these programs and all others.

A significant burden is caused by forcing schools to monitor for these
types of credits, to store their findings, and to update the results
each time a student's academic record changes. Identification of these
types of credits will require manual review of high school transcripts,
transcripts from other institutions, and review of their own academic
records for students who may have taken classes at their institution
prior to high school graduation. The results must then be stored because
schools must review a student's academic year standing each semester to
be sure their ACG or SMART award matches up to their academic year
classification for that semester. This will add a new dimension of
reviewing high school transcripts for SMART Grants in order to identify
AP/IB credits and credits earned prior to high school graduation. If the
law allows for the "credits-earned" alternative to include all credits
accepted by the institution in calculating the time component of the
academic year, as with the "assumption method" outlined in GEN-06-18, we
strongly urge that flexibility.

GEN-06-18 provided greatly needed administrative relief in calculating a
student's academic year standing for institutions using term-based
calendars with at least 30 weeks of instructional time. In addition,
later guidance which addressed the implementation of GEN-06-18 allowed
an institution to utilize either of the alternatives on a
student-by-student basis, as well as a semester-by-semester basis. This
flexibility of implementation allowed schools maximum tools to advantage
a student. The flexibility is needed because it is not possible to
reliably project a student's continued or future eligibility status for
ACG or National SMART Grant. How can you project if a student will
change to a SMART-eligible major, or be eligible for a Pell Grant in the
future, or take transfer credits in the summer, or enroll full-time next
semester, or withdraw a semester for medical reasons, etc? The nature of
student behavior and the flexibilities offered by institutions make the
monitoring of academic year the most manual, labor-intensive requirement
of any federal program to date. We need all the flexibility that is
possible.

For example, a student's eligibility can change from the initial point
of determination due to:

♦Late grades ♦Incomplete grades

♦Deferred grades ♦Grade changes

♦Late posting of study abroad grades ♦Late posting of transfer credits

♦Change to major ♦Late posting of transient or consortium grades

> ♦Drop/add after semester begins ♦Withdrawal
>
> ♦Retroactive add/withdrawal

♦Timing of receipt of AP/IB scores from the College Board

♦Timing of receipt of final high school transcripts (for new students
and for second year

transfers for whom the school did not require a high school transcript
for admission)

The issues above and others can impact the total number of credits
earned, the GPA, or both, which in turn can make a school's prior
eligibility determination for these grants invalid (e.g. the difference
between having 29 or 30 credits, the difference between a 2.9 or a 3.0
GPA, the difference between qualifying for a first or second year ACG,
or a third or fourth year SMART, or an ACG or a SMART, etc.). Receipt of
final transcripts and receipt of AP/IB scores can impact determination
of "rigorous high school program". These issues can arise at any point
in time during a semester, so eligibility determination is not a
one-time exercise; it requires constant monitoring, even after a
semester has ended. Allowing the flexibility to utilize the
"actual-count" alternative, where the results do not allow for a time
component associated with non-traditional credits, or a "credits-earned"
alternative which would be modified to allow inclusion of
non-traditional credits, would provide administrative relief as well as
flexibility that would allow us to best benefit our students depending
on their current situation. This flexibility could assist us in some of
these situations. An example is provided in the section below.

While we appreciate the offering of alternatives, we strongly disagree
that offering alternative methods for determining weeks of instructional
time without allowing inclusion of non-traditional credits when opting
for the "credits-earned" method will help alleviate the administrative
burden for schools with traditional academic calendars. It will most
definitely increase the burden. We also strongly recommend the
flexibility to utilize whichever method most assists the student on a
student-by-student, case-by-case basis, and allowing the inclusion of
all credits accepted by the institution for the "credits-earned"
alternative.

***Limitations on Determining Weeks of Instructional Time (§
691.6(d)(2)) Page 44054***

Our objections to removing the ability to include non-traditional
credits from all alternatives to determine weeks of instructional time
have been provided above.

While we understand the desire to require the proposed treatment of
non-traditional credits to "treat students consistently and preserve two
full years of ACG eligibility for many students who might otherwise have
such credits counted in a way that could make them ineligible for a
first-year ACG", we believe that giving schools the option to count
non-traditional credits in the "credits-earned" alternative, or to use
the "actual-count" method where these credits are excluded, gives more
flexibility, while still allowing students to receive a first-year ACG
through use of the "actual-count" alternative. Please note that the
proposed requirement can work against a highly motivated student in a
SMART eligible major. Our institution has students who enter with 30 to
45 AP credits. Under this proposal, our student with 45 AP credits,
which we accepted and which count towards the student's general degree
requirements, would receive both years of her ACG, but would lose a
semester of SMART Grant because she is graduating before she completes
her fourth academic year when calculating academic year standing with
the AP credits discounted from the time component. She gains a semester
of second-year ACG and loses a semester of fourth year SMART Grant.

The requirement to monitor progression based on the HEA definition of
academic year has been crippling. We need flexibility, not a mandate.

***Transfer GPA -- ACG (§ 691.15(f)(1)) Page 44055***

We support the proposal providing that for a student who transfers to an
institution which accepts at least the credit or clock hours for an
entire academic year, but less than for two academic years, the GPA to
determine second-year eligibility is calculated using all coursework
accepted by the current institution into the student's eligible program.

However, based on this proposal, we request clarification of the
following transfer student scenario:

[Scenario]{.underline}: A student transfers to our institution and the
number of accepted credits puts the student in academic year two. In
evaluating for second year ACG, is it correct that we use the GPA of all
transfer credits accepted to our institution?

For example, our institution uses 30 credits as the credit requirement
in our definition of academic year. A student transfers to us and 50
credits are accepted. The student is in academic year two. The student's
GPA based on the 50 accepted transfer credits is 2.9. Is that student
ineligible for a second year ACG grant at our institution, even if his
or her GPA was 3.0 or higher at the prior institution at the end of the
first academic year?

What if the prior school had awarded and disbursed one semester of a
second year ACG grant? Do we defer to the transfer credit GPA (2.9), as
stated in the proposal, and deny a second disbursement of the second
year GPA? Or should we assume that this transfer student met the GPA
requirement at the end of the first academic year based on the NSLDS
information -- i.e. the student received a disbursement of a second year
ACG at the prior school -- and give the student her remaining
disbursement of the second year ACG if the student is otherwise eligible
(much as we rely on a prior school's determination of rigorous high
school program based on the NSLDS data)?

The proposal to require the calculation of a 'hybrid' GPA (a GPA which
includes grades for accepted transfer credits plus grades for credits
earned at our institution) for a student who transfers to our
institution in their first academic year, but advances to their second
academic year after at least one period of enrollment at our
institution, is strongly opposed for several reasons.

First, schools who do not perform and store this calculation as a matter
of institutional policy will have no way of knowing which transfer
students may attain the required 3.0 'hybrid' GPA at the point at which
they advance to their second academic year, which could be after one
semester, two semesters, or more. Therefore, these schools will need to
track all first year transfer students, identify at what point in time
they advance to second year, and perform a manual GPA calculation on all
of them to see if they meet the GPA requirement for second-year ACG, if
other requirements are met.

Once again, a 'disconnect' is created between the school's institutional
policy for all other programs vs. the ACG program. These schools would
have one GPA calculation used only for the second year ACG, and a
different GPA calculation for all other programs (per their
institutional policy). How do you explain to a parent that their student
is eligible for your university scholarship, which requires a 3.0
cumulative GPA, but not for the second year ACG, which also requires a
3.0 cumulative GPA, because there are different GPA calculations used
for the same group of courses? Or vice versa? If the federal government
wishes to enter the arena of qualitative measures for federal grant
funds, we strongly recommend that they allow schools to employ their
long standing institutional academic policies for this determination. It
is not reasonable to mandate uniformity for a qualitative measure of
performance across all schools.

In addition, the reasoning for this proposal is that the GPA
calculations for ACG and SMART were different. These differences were
not related to how the GPA was calculated for transfer students, but
rather to the timing of the determination: for second year ACG, the
determination is once -- at the end of the first academic year -- and
for SMART Grant the determination is prior to each disbursement (i.e. at
the end of each grading period).

The SMART Grant proposal allows an institution to utilize the cumulative
GPA calculation per their academic policy. The ACG proposal mandates a
specific way to calculate the GPA, even if it's different than the
school's academic policy. This will not bring these two calculations in
line with each other. It will make one calculation different from the
other for schools who do not already include transfer credits in their
cumulative GPA calculation per their current academic policy.

It will force a manual calculation where one was not required before. It
will most definitely increase the administrative burden on schools that
do not already calculate and store a GPA which includes accepted
transfer credits.

Finally, the proposal does not address what GPA would be used for
subsequent semesters for those students in SMART eligible majors.

Of all the proposals, this one is the most strongly opposed by our
institution, unless the following request for clarification changes our
interpretation of the proposal.

We request clarification of the following verbiage in the proposal:

The final paragraph in this section states "Finally, under proposed §
691.15(f)(1)(ii), an institution ***could*** combine grades from
coursework earned at prior institutions with grades from coursework
earned at the current institution to calculate the GPA for...". The word
"could" suggests an option. The language in the proposal prior to this
paragraph suggests a requirement. Please clarify.

***Transfer GPA -- National SMART Grant (§ 691.15(f)(2)) Page 44056***

We support the proposal in its entirety and are especially pleased to
see the offering of differing methods to calculate an incoming transfer
student's GPA based on whichever method is in line with the
institution's academic policy. We would like to see this option offered
in *Transfer GPA -- ACG (§ 691.15(f)(1))* for transfer students who are
admitted during their first academic year and advance to their second
academic year after completing at least one enrollment period at the new
institution. That is, for a transfer student who advances to their
second academic year after completing at least one enrollment period at
the new institution, allow the institution to use the cumulative GPA
calculation per their normal institutional policy when evaluating for
second year ACG. This would bring the GPA calculation for ACG and
National SMART Grant into alignment at each school, and would allow
schools to enforce their regular institutional policies for GPA
calculation. It would also eliminate the creation of a new
administrative burden on schools who do not already calculate their
cumulative GPA in this manner.

***Prior Enrollment in a Postsecondary Educational Program and Student
Eligibility (§ 691.15) Page 44056***

 We support the extension of ACG eligibility to postsecondary students
who previously enrolled as regular students in an ACG eligible program
while in high school provided that they were beyond the age of
compulsory attendance during that prior enrollment only because it
removes what appears to be an unnecessary barrier to the grant funds.
However, we are not clear on the intent of the section of the law that
denies ACG to students who were 'previously enrolled', and do not know
the intended outcome of that provision. Please comment. At some point,
we would like to see this provision stricken from the law, as it seems
to penalize highly motivated students.

***Determination of Eligible Majors (§ 691.2(d) and § 691.17) Page
44057***

 We support the proposal providing a process by which institutions of
higher education could request that additional majors be added to the
Department's list of eligible majors for SMART Grants. We support the
concept that all approved majors continue to be identified through their
CIP code, and would encourage the Department to develop a standard form,
perhaps an electronic form, which would allow for the collection of all
documentation the Department deems is necessary to make a decision on
the institution's request. We also encourage a set deadline for such
submissions, and for the Department's decision, so that the annual list
of approved majors can be published in a timely manner, preferably no
later than July 1.

***Successful Completion of a Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study
(§ 691.15) Page 44057***

 We support the clarification in the proposal that successful
completion of a rigorous high school program of study means that a
student must, in addition to completing the rigorous program of study,
obtain a high school diploma or, for a home schooled students, receive a
high school diploma or certification of completion of a secondary school
education provided by the student's parent or guardian.

***Recognition of a Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study (§
691.16) Page 44058)***

 We support the proposal to allow SEAs and LEAs to request recognition
of rigorous secondary school programs of study for school years beyond
the immediate next school year for the reasons stated in the proposal.
We believe secondary schools are just now becoming more aware of these
programs and the impact that they (secondary schools) can have on a
student's eligibility prior to attendance at a postsecondary
institution. This is where planning and communication at the secondary
school level can be most effective.

Under the current regulations, no matter how a student performs in his
or her first academic year, that student can never qualify for ACG if he
or she did not meet one of the 'rigorous high school programs of study'
requirements. We have students who have experienced the fallout from
this rigorous high school program requirement for second year ACG in
that after one academic year in college the students have completed 30
or more credits and have attained a high GPA (3.9 in one instance), but
the students can't receive a second year ACG because they did not meet
the rigorous high school program requirement. The students were clearly
prepared for college. At some point, we would like to see the provision
requiring a rigorous high school program for students in their second
academic year stricken from the law.