**Academic Competitiveness and National SMART Grant Programs:**

**First-Year Lessons Learned**

Susan P. Choy

Lutz Berkner

MPR Associates

John Lee

Amelia Topper

JBL Associates

For:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

2009

# This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Task Order Number ED-04-CO-0036/002 with RTI International. The project monitor was Sharon K. Stout in the Policy and Program Studies Service. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred. This publication contains Web site addresses and publications created and maintained by private organizations. This information is provided for the reader’s convenience. The U.S. Department of Education is not responsible for controlling or guaranteeing the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside information. Further, the inclusion of a publication, other commercially available products or a Web site address does not reflect the importance of the organization, nor is it intended to endorse any views expressed, or products or services offered.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Margaret Spellings

*Secretary*

**Office of the Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development**

Bill Evers

*Assistant Secretary*

**Policy and Program Studies Service**

Alan Ginsburg

*Director*

**Program and Analytic Division**

David Goodwin

*Director*

January 2009

This report is in the public domain. The photograph is used with permission. Authorization to reproduce this report in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service,*Academic Competitiveness and National SMART Grant Programs: First-Year Lessons Learned*. Washington, D.C., 2009.

To order online, point your Internet browser to: www.edpubs.ed.gov.

This report is available on the Department’s Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/index.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818.

Contents

**Page**

**List of Figures**v

**List of Tables**ix

**Acknowledgments**xiii

**Executive Summary**xv

**Chapter 1. Introduction******1

Background1

Implementation2

Expected Program Outcomes3

Purpose of the Study5

**Chapter 2. Early History of the ACG and National SMART Grant Legislation and Implementation Concerns****7**

Intent, Goals, and History of the ACG and National SMART Grant Legislation8

Complex Requirements and Rapid Implementation10

Stakeholders’ Perspectives11

Development and Resolution of Salient Concerns14

Eligibility Requirements for ACG and National SMART Grant Programs15

Requirements Common to ACGs and National SMART Grants17

Additional ACG and National SMART Grant Requirements18

Regulatory Concerns23

Ongoing Concerns27

Conclusion29

**Chapter 3. Rigorous High School Programs******31

U.S. Department of Education Definitions of a Rigorous High School Program31

Approved State Programs33

State****High School Graduation Requirements42

Conclusion45

**Chapter 4. ACG and National SMART Grant Participation in 2006–07******47

ACG Program47

National SMART Grant Program64

**Page**

**Chapter 5. Baseline Information**79

Trends in High School Course-taking79

Estimates of Eligibility for ACGs and National SMART Grants85

Trends in Degrees Awarded in National SMART Grant Majors94

Conclusion97

**Chapter 6. Summary of U.S. Department of Education and Stakeholder Recommendations**99

U.S. Department of Education99

Stakeholders101

**References**105

**Appendix A. List of National SMART Grant-Eligible Majors**109

**Appendix B. History of the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs******117

**Appendix C. *High Schools That Work* Award of Educational Achievement**129

**Appendix D. National Data Sources**131

**Appendix E. Supplemental Tables on ACG and National SMART Grant Program Participation by Institution Type in 2006–07**133

**Appendix F. Supplemental Tables on High School Course Work**149

**Appendix G. Supplemental Tables on ACG and National SMART Grant Program Participation by State in 2006–07******155

Figures

**FigurePage**

1Hypothetical cohort progression and timing of eligibility for ACGs or SMART Grants 4

2Number of states with one to five or more ways to meet the rigorous curriculum requirement for the ACG: 2006–0733

3Among the 35 states with course-based approved rigorous programs, number of states in which the course requirements of the least rigorous approved program matched or exceeded the ED course-based curriculum: 200642

4Number of states requiring courses in various subjects for a standard high school diploma in 200645

5Percentage of eligible institutions awarding ACGs, by type of institution: 2006–0748

6Percentage of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients who also received an ACG, by type of institution attended: 2006–0749

7Percentage distribution of first- and second-year ACG recipients by amount received: 2006–0750

8Percentage distribution of institutions participating in the ACG program by the number of ACGs awarded: 2006–0751

9Percentage distribution of ACG recipients by class level: 2006–0752

10Percentage distributions of ACG recipients and students who received only Pell Grants at ACG-participating institutions by gender and age: 2006–0753

11Percentage distribution of dependent ACG recipients and dependent students who received only Pell Grants at ACG-participating institutions by parents’ income: 2006–0754

12Of all dependent first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients at ACG-participating institutions, percentage who received ACGs and only Pell Grants, by Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–0755

**FigurePage**

13Average grant amounts awarded to dependent first- and second-year students with ACGs, by Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–0756

14Percentage distribution of Pell Grant and ACG dollars for dependent first- and second-year students by Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–0757

15Percentage distribution of ACG recipients by type of qualification for an ACG: 2006–0758

16Percentage of eligible institutions participating in the SMART Grant program, by type of institution: 2006–0764

17Percentage of Pell Grant recipients who also received SMART Grants by class level, by type of participating institution: 2006–0765

18Percentage distribution of third- and fourth-year SMART Grant recipients by amount received: 2006–0766

19Percentage distribution of institutions participating in the SMART Grant Program by the number of SMART Grant recipients: 2006–0767

20Percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by class level: 2006–0768

21Of SMART Grant recipients and third- and fourth-year students who received only Pell Grants at SMART Grant-participating institutions, percentage distributions by gender and age: 2006–0768

22Of dependent SMART Grant recipients and dependent third- and fourth-year students who received only Pell Grants at SMART Grant-participating institutions, percentage distribution by parents’ income: 2006–0769

23Of all dependent third- and fourth-year students receiving Pell Grants at SMART Grant-participating institutions, percentage distribution by whether they received a SMART Grant, by Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–0771

24Average Pell and SMART Grant amounts awarded to dependent third- and fourth-year students with SMART Grants, by Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–0772

25Percentage distribution of Pell Grant and SMART Grant dollars for dependent third- and fourth-year students, by Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–0773

26Percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by field of study: 2006–0774

27Number of SMART Grants, by field of study: 2006–0774

**FigurePage**

28Percentage distribution of SMART Grants by type of institution within field of study: 2006–0775

29Percentage of *all* high school graduates completing a rigorous high school program in various subject areas: 1990, 2000, and 200581

30Percentage of high school graduates completing the ED course-based curriculum, by family income: 200482

31Among 2004 high school graduates who enrolled in college full-time within a year of high school graduation, percentage who had completed a rigorous high school program, by family income84

32Among first-year students in degree programs who were recent high school graduates, percentage who would have met ACG requirements: 1995–96 and 2003–0488

33Of recent high school graduates enrolled in degree programs, percentage with selected student and institutional characteristics: 2003–0491

34Percentage of third-year and above undergraduates meeting SMART Grant Eligibility requirements: 1999–2000 and 2003–0493

Tables 

**TablePage**

1Summary of the legislation, regulations, and the Department of Education’s guidance in interpreting the regulations9

2Stakeholder organizations relevant to the ACG and National SMART Grant programs12

3Development and resolution of salient concerns14

4Detail on rigorous high school programs approved by the U.S. Department of Education, by state: 2006–0734

5Summary of options for qualifying for an ACG and comparison of approved state programs to ED course-based curriculum, by state: 2006–0739

6Graduation requirements for a standard high school diploma, by state: 200643

7Number of first- and second-year students at four-year institutions with Pell Grants, number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, and states with rigorous admissions programs, by state of student’s residence: 2006–07 59

8Number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients who also received an ACG and the number and percentage distribution of ACG recipients by type of qualification, by state of student’s residence: 2006–0761

9Number of third- and fourth-year students with Pell Grants, number with SMART Grants, percentage of Pell Grant recipients who also received a SMART Grant, and percentage of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in SMART Grant-eligible fields, by state of institution attended: 2006–0777

10Beginning postsecondary students who met various ACG requirements: 1995–96 and 2003–0487

11Number of beginning postsecondary students in degree programs who were recent high school graduates, number of those who were Pell Grant recipients, and number and percentage who would have been eligible for ACGs, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 2003–0489

**TablePage**

12Number of third-year and above undergraduates in bachelor’s degree programs, number who were Pell Grant recipients, and number and percentage who would have been eligible for SMART Grants, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 2003–0492

13Number and percentage of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in SMART Grant-eligible majors: 1995–96, 2000–01, and 2005–0694

14Number and percentage of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in SMART Grant-eligible majors and percentage distribution by state: 1995–96, 2000–01, and 2005–0695

15Number and percentage of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in SMART Grant-eligible majors and percentage distribution by type of institution: 1995–96, 2000–01, and 2005–0696

E-1Participation of eligible institutions in ACG and SMART Grant programs: 2006–07134

E-2Number and percentage of Pell Grant students receiving ACGs or SMART Grants at participating colleges: 2006–07135

E-3Average number of Pell Grants, ACGs, or SMART Grants at participating institutions: 2006–07136

E-4Number and percentage distribution of colleges participating in ACG or SMART Grant programs by the number of grant recipients: 2006–07137

E-5Number and percentage distribution of colleges participating in ACG or SMART Grant programs by the percentage of Pell Grant recipients who also received ACGs or SMART Grants: 2006–07139

E-6Number and percentage distribution of ACGs and total Pell Grants by class level and type of institution, and percentage of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients receiving ACGs: 2006–07141

E-7Number and percentage distribution of SMART Grants and total Pell Grants by class level and type of institution, and percentage of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients receiving SMART Grants: 2006–07142

E-8Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant recipients by class level, gender, citizenship, and age and percentage of ACG and SMART Grant recipients as a percentage of total Pell Grants: 2006–07143

**TablePage**

E-9Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant recipients by class level, dependency and parental income of dependent students, and percentage of ACG and SMART Grant recipients as a percentage of total Pell Grants: 2006–07144

E-10Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant recipients by class level, dependency, and Expected Family Contribution (EFC), and percentage of ACG and SMART Grant recipients as a percentage of total Pell Grants: 2006–07145

E-11Average amounts of Expected Family Contribution (EFC), income of dependent students’ parents, Pell Grant, ACG, SMART Grant, and combined total grants of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant recipients, by class level: 2006–07146

E-12Number of grants, total dollar amounts, and average grant amounts awarded to dependent students with ACGs or SMART Grants, by Expected Family Contribution (EFC) of the students: 2006–07147

E-13Number and percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by field of study and type of institution attended: 2006–07148

F-1Percentage of high school graduates who completed the ED course-based high school curriculum, by family income, socioeconomic status, total number of credits earned in AP or IB courses, and postsecondary status a year later: 2004150

F-2Percentage of high school graduates who completed a rigorous high school program as defined in the State Scholars Initiative, by family income, socioeconomic status, total number of credits earned in AP or IB courses, and postsecondary status a year later: 2004152

G-1Number of first- and second-year students with Pell Grants and ACGs and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, by state of student’s residence: 2006–07 156

G-2Number of first- and second-year students at two-year institutions with Pell Grants and ACGs and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, by state of student’s residence: 2006–07 158

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of many individuals to the production of this report. David Goodwin and Margaret Cahalan of the Policy and Program Studies Service in the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD) were instrumental in the design of the study. David Bergeron and Sophia McArdle of the Office of Postsecondary Education gave us helpful feedback on the presentation of the history of the legislation and regulations. Kathleen Wicks and Werner Moeller of Federal Student Aid provided the data files on grant awards and answered questions. Daniel Goldenberg of the Budget Service (OPEPD) provided useful feedback on estimates of the number of potentially eligible students.

Members of the Technical Working Group for this project—Vincent Amoroso of Johns Hopkins University, Stephen DesJardins of the University of Michigan, Alicia Dowd of the University of Southern California, and Donald Heller of Pennsylvania State University—provided insightful comments on an earlier draft and made many useful suggestions.

At MPR Associates, Shirley He, Xianglei Chen, and Joanna Wu did the programming for the tables. Barbara Kridl supervised the production of the report, Andrea Livingston edited it, and Alicia Broadway and Martha Hoeper formatted it. Edward Ohnemus in the Department’s Office of Communication and Outreach reviewed the report for publication.

Executive Summary

**Background**

The *Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005* created two new grant programs for undergraduates: the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) program and the National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (National SMART) Grant program. The ACG program is intended to encourage students to take challenging courses in high school and thus increase their likelihood of success in college. The National SMART Grant program is intended to encourage students to pursue college majors considered in high demand in the global economy (mathematics, science, engineering, technology, and languages deemed critical to the national interest).

To be eligible for an ACG or National SMART Grant, a student had to qualify for a Federal Pell Grant, enroll full-time in a degree program at a two- or four-year institution of higher education, and be a U.S. citizen. First-year students who met these conditions, graduated from high school after Jan. 1, 2006, and completed a rigorous high school program (as defined by the U.S. Department of Education) could receive an ACG up to $750 (depending on their financial need). Second-year students could receive up to $1,300 if they graduated from high school after Jan. 1, 2005, met all the other conditions for an ACG, and had a cumulative grade point average (GPA) of at least 3.0 at the end of their first year of college. National SMART Grants worth up to $4,000 are available to third- and fourth-year students who are majoring in mathematics, science (physical, life, or computer), engineering, technology, or certain foreign languages considered critical to the national interest and who maintain a cumulative GPA of at least 3.0.

With the passage of the *Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008* (H.R. 5715), eligibility for the programs has been expanded. Specifically, part-time students and noncitizen permanent residents will be able to receive ACGs and National SMART Grants starting in Jan. 2009, and students in certificate programs lasting a year or more at a degree-granting institution will be able to receive ACGs. However, the *Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008*(H.R. 4137), enacted in August 2008, delayed implementation of these changes and gave states increased control over defining rigorous secondary school programs of study. This report describes implementation and participation patterns under the original eligibility conditions.

If the new grant programs are successful, more low-income students will complete rigorous high school programs, enroll in college full-time, and earn degrees, and more students will major in mathematics, science, engineering, technology, and critical languages. The U.S. Department of Education has encouraged states, school districts, and schools to take steps to promote rigorous course-taking and to establish efficient mechanisms for verifying students’ eligibility for the grants. Congress provided $790 million for ACGs and National SMART Grants for 2006–07 and $4.5 billion over five years. The programs will end after the 2010–11 academic year unless reauthorized. 

Approximately 300,000 ACGs and 60,000 National SMART Grants were awarded in the 2006–07 academic year, compared with the Department’s initial estimates of 425,000 ACGs and 80,000 National SMART Grants. Whether the shortfall was due to an overestimate of the number of eligible students, difficulties associated with the rapid implementation of a complex program, or both is difficult to assess. The Department’s goal is to double participation by 2010–11.

MPR Associates and JBL Associates are assisting the Department of Education in evaluating the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. Because the programs were announced in May 2006 and the first awards made for the 2006–07 academic year, it is too soon to answer the most important questions that the Department has posed for this multiyear study: 

· Will the financial incentives provided by the ACG program induce more economically disadvantaged high school students to complete a rigorous high school program and enroll and succeed in postsecondary education? 

· Will the availability of National SMART Grants motivate more students to major and receive degrees in mathematics, science, engineering, technology, and critical languages? 

Students currently in their final years of high school simply may not have enough time left to take all the required courses, and students about to enter their third and fourth years of college may be well-established in other majors and not have the foundation needed to switch to one of the qualifying majors even if they wanted to. First-year activities therefore focused on the following:

· Identifying and describing implementation issues from the perspective of major stakeholders by conducting interviews, reviewing documents, and monitoring stakeholder Web sites.

· Comparing information on the state-specific rigorous high school programs approved by the secretary of education and on state high school graduation requirements. 

· Examining 2006–07 participation in the programs overall, across states, by student characteristics, and (for National SMART Grants) by field of study using the COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File maintained by the Office of Federal Student Aid.

· Analyzing historical data to determine national trends in high school course-taking and to develop estimates of eligibility for ACGs and National SMART Grants. This baseline information—obtained from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS), Beginning Postsecondary Student Aid Studies (BPS), National Postsecondary Student Aid Studies (NPSAS), and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)—will provide a benchmark against which to examine current and future participation in the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. 

· Summarizing Department of Education and stakeholder recommendations for improving the programs.

This report summarizes the findings of these activities and presents recommendations developed by the Department of Education and stakeholders to increase participation. Updates to this report will be provided after years two and three, and a final report on outcomes and impact prepared after the fourth year of the programs (2009–10). The impact of the programs will be evaluated as data become available. Multivariate analyses will be employed to the extent feasible, focusing on longitudinal state data.

**Summary of Major Findings**

***First-Year Implementation Concerns***

· Although stakeholders applaud the intent of the programs, many were frustrated by the administrative burdens put on institutions and staff and the lack of awareness and confusion about the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. Some difficulties were eased during the first implementation year as the Department clarified language in the regulations, such as how to compute grade point averages (GPAs), how academic year is defined, and methods for establishing a student’s academic major. Nevertheless, some concerns remain, including the need to base ACG awards on students’ four-year high school transcripts (which colleges do not always have) and difficulties associated with verifying the completion of a rigorous high school program. 

· Successful implementation of the programs (especially ensuring that students are well-informed) will require cooperation and coordination across high school and postsecondary education. High school counselors, college academic advisors, and financial aid administrators interviewed for this report all commented on the lack of awareness and the need for better coordination among these groups of professionals.

***State Definitions of Rigorous High School Programs***

· For the first year of the ACG program, the U.S. secretary of education approved as rigorous at least one advanced, honors, or other program in 40 states and approved more than one program in 22 states. The content of these programs varied widely. Some appeared to be more demanding than the Department of Education (ED) course-based curriculum, some appeared to be less demanding, and some were difficult to compare.

***First-Year Participation***

· First-year participation was lower than expected for both ACGs and National SMART Grants (about 300,000 ACGs and 60,000 National SMART Grants, compared with the 425,000 and 80,000 initially estimated). It is difficult to know whether this is due to inaccurate estimates of the number eligible, implementation issues, lack of knowledge about the programs, or all of the above. 

· At four-year institutions, the percentage of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients that received an ACG ranged from a high of 32 percent (for Massachusetts residents) to a low of 4 percent (for Alaska residents). At two-year institutions, the rate varied from 6 percent (for Oklahoma and Florida residents) to less than 1 percent in six states.

· About one-quarter of all first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients received an ACG at public and private nonprofit four-year institutions, but only 3 percent did so at public two-year institutions, at which students are more likely to enroll part-time and are less likely to be well-prepared academically. 

· About three-quarters of ACG recipients were first-year students, suggesting that second-year students had difficulty meeting the 3.0 GPA requirement (the only difference in the requirements for first- and second-year awards). 

· Five percent of Pell Grant recipients in both the third and fourth years received a National SMART Grant.

· Participation rates for the National SMART Grant program also varied (from 2 percent in the District of Columbia to 14 percent in Utah). There did not appear to be any systematic relationship between the National SMART Grant participation rate at institutions in a state and the percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded in National SMART Grant-eligible fields in that state. In other words, a state’s rate cannot be explained simply by the proportion of students majoring in eligible fields in that state. 

· Although all recipients were from lower-income families, ACG recipients tended to come from families with higher incomes than those who received only Pell Grants. Students with Expected Family Contributions (EFCs) of 0 received 46 percent of all Pell Grant dollars awarded, but only 32 percent of ACG dollars. The family income of dependent students with National SMART Grants was also somewhat higher than that of those who received only Pell Grants.

· About half of all participating institutions awarded fewer than 50 ACG Grants, and about one-third awarded fewer than 10 National SMART Grants. 

· Students with a major in the life sciences had the largest share of National SMART Grants (38 percent).

***Historical Information: Trends in High School Course-taking***

· States have been raising high school graduation standards and are continuing to do so, with numerous changes planned for the next few years. These efforts encourage more rigorous course-taking and may promote increased eligibility for ACGs regardless of any other initiatives, but they confound efforts to isolate the impact of the ACG program on course-taking.

· The percentage of high school graduates completing a rigorous high school program has increased over time. About half of all high school graduates now complete the ED course-based rigorous curriculum, but low-income students are less likely than others to do so. The same is true even when the comparison is limited to those who enroll in college full-time right after high school, although the gap is less pronounced for this group.

***Historical Information: Estimates of Eligibility***

· Based on analysis of historical data, 13 percent of first-time, first-year students would have been eligible for an ACG in 2003–04, which is almost double the percentage that would have been eligible in 1995–96 (7 percent) had the program existed in those years. In contrast, the percentage of undergraduates in the third year or above that would have been eligible for a National SMART Grant remained stable at 2 percent.

· The academic requirement for the ACG appears difficult to meet. Most undergraduates are U.S. citizens and most recent high school graduates enrolled full-time in college, but barely half of those meeting these eligibility criteria also took the required courses. Taking science courses and a language other than English were the most difficult requirements to meet.

***Historical Information: Trends in National SMART Grant-eligible Majors***

· The proportion of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in National SMART Grant-eligible fields has remained stable—about 15 percent since 1995–96.

**Summary of Department of Education and Stakeholder Recommendations**

· To increase the number of students qualified for grants, the Department has asked states to commit to doubling the number of grant recipients by 2010–11. To achieve this goal, the Department has urged high school and postsecondary stakeholders to know their states’ approved rigorous curricula, advocate for initiatives to increase low-income students’ access to rigorous course work and National SMART Grant-eligible majors, and support efforts to increase awareness of the grant programs. 

· To improve the identification of students eligible for grants, the Department has suggested strategies such as developing a core high school curriculum for college admissions that meets ACG eligibility requirements; having states provide colleges with lists of students receiving recognition through programs that make them potentially eligible for an ACG; and having institutions review the transcripts of all Pell Grant recipients to ensure that eligible students are not overlooked.

· To reduce the administrative burden on high schools and postsecondary institutions, stakeholders offered recommendations similar to those of the Department but also called for additional assistance in devising and applying solutions. They recommend improved collaboration on marketing the ACG and National SMART Grant programs; training and workshops for financial aid administrators, college registrars, academic advisors, and high school guidance and college counselors; and better communication between high school and college counselors. 

**Chapter 1**

Introduction

**Background**

The *Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005* created two new grant programs for undergraduates: the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) program and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (National SMART) Grant program. The ACG program is intended to encourage students to take challenging courses in high school and thus increase their likelihood of success in college. The National SMART Grant program is intended to encourage students to pursue certain college majors considered in high demand in the global economy (mathematics, science, engineering, technology, and certain languages deemed critical to the national interest). Congress provided $790 million for the 2006–07 academic year for these new programs, and $4.5 billion over five years. The programs will end after the 2010–11 academic year unless reauthorized so it is important to know soon whether the programs are having the desired effect and if there are any unintended consequences that should be addressed.

To be eligible for an ACG or National SMART Grant, a student had to qualify for a Federal Pell Grant, enroll full-time in a degree program at a two- or four-year institution of higher education, and be a U.S. citizen. First-year students who met these conditions, graduated from high school after Jan. 1, 2006, and completed a rigorous high school program (as defined by the U.S. Department of Education) could receive an ACG up to $750 (depending on their financial need). Second-year students could receive up to $1,300 if they graduated from high school after Jan. 1, 2005, met all the other conditions for an ACG, and had a cumulative grade point average (GPA) of at least 3.0 at the end of their first year of college. National SMART Grants worth up to $4,000 are available to third- and fourth-year students who are majoring in mathematics, science (physical, life, or computer), engineering, technology, or certain foreign languages considered critical to the national interest and who maintain a cumulative GPA of at least 3.0. 

With the passage of the *Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008* (H.R. 5715), eligibility for the programs has been expanded. Specifically, part-time students and noncitizen permanent residents will be able to receive ACGs and National SMART Grants starting in January 2009, and students in certificate programs lasting a year or more at a degree-granting institution will be able to receive ACGs. The *Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008* (H.R. 4137) (HEOA) delayed enactment of the expanded eligibility until July 2009.

**Implementation**

To facilitate a quick and smooth implementation of the ACG program, the secretary of education provided four ways for students to satisfy the “rigorous high school program” requirement for the first two years of the program (2006–07 and 2007–08). The secretary also stated that she intended to raise the standard in the future and define a set of requirements later that more accurately reflects what is required for success in college. 

Beginning July 1, 2006, Pell Grant recipients who met the nonacademic requirements (based on their financial aid application) were notified by mail or e-mail that they might be eligible for an ACG or National SMART Grant if they met the academic requirements. Students were required to self-identify their potential eligibility, which their institutions then verified before the awards were made. Students applying for financial aid after July 1, 2006, were able to self-identify when they filled out their financial aid application by answering a series of questions about their high school course-taking. 

The first ACGs and National SMART Grants were awarded for the 2006–07 academic year. The Department of Education issued Interim Regulations for the new grant programs in July 2006, engaged in negotiations for establishing rules during the summer of 2007, and issued Final Regulations in October 2007. Because of the rapid implementation of the programs—the procedures for implementing the programs were announced in May 2006 and the first grants awarded for fall 2006—and the complexities surrounding the details of the eligibility criteria, it was inevitable that implementation would present some administrative difficulties (discussed in Chapter 2).

Approximately 300,000 ACGs and 60,000 National SMART Grants were awarded in the 2006–07 academic year, compared with the Department’s initial estimates of 425,000 ACGs and 80,000 National SMART Grants. Whether the shortfall was due to an overestimate of the number of eligible students, difficulties associated with the rapid implementation of a complex program, or both is difficult to assess. The Department of Education has set a goal to double participation by 2010–11, urging states, colleges, and high schools to promote ACGs and National SMART Grants because completing a rigorous high school program is the best way to increase college readiness, reduce remediation, and increase college completion rates for low-income students, and increased postsecondary attainment will help the United States compete in the 21st century.

**Expected Program Outcomes**

If the new grant programs are successful over time, they will bring about an increase in the percentage of low-income students who earn college degrees and encourage more students to major in mathematics, science, engineering, technology, and critical languages. More specifically, over time, increasing numbers of low-income high school students will 

· complete a rigorous high school program; 

· learn about the ACG and National SMART Grant programs; 

· respond to that knowledge and enroll full-time in a degree program; 

· receive an ACG for their first year;

· earn a 3.0 GPA in their first year of college;

· continue to enroll full-time in their second year and have their grants renewed;

· select a major in a National SMART Grant-eligible field;

· enroll full-time and receive a National SMART Grant;

· earn a 3.0 GPA in their third year; and

· continue to enroll full-time in their fourth year and have their grants renewed.

Assuming this type of success, the gaps in the college enrollment, persistence, and completion rates of low-income and other students should narrow over time. In terms of the proportion of Pell Grant recipients receiving an ACG, one would expect to see the highest rates in states with high standards for high school diplomas and in which the honors programs have rigorous course requirements that match or exceed the minimum requirements for admission to a four-year college. One would also expect to find high rates in states with effective college awareness programs and in states and colleges with administrative procedures that make it easy to identify and verify eligible students. 

It will take some time for the full effect of the new grant programs to be realized because students currently in their final years of high school simply may not have enough time left to take all the required courses. In addition, students about to enter their third and fourth years of college may be well-established in other majors and not have the foundation needed to switch to one of the qualifying majors even if they wanted to do so. To illustrate the length of time it will take to see the impact of the new grant programs, Figure 1 details the progression of three hypothetical cohorts. The first cohort consists of students entering high school the same year the grants were announced (2006–07) and therefore in a position to pursue a rigorous curriculum from the start. Even if students in this cohort were aware of the ACGs and motivated by them to start a rigorous high school program, the effect on ACG participation rates would not be noticed until at least 2010–11, when these students are college freshmen. The second cohort consists of students who entered college in 2006–07 and might have been motivated by the prospect of getting a National SMART Grant to enroll in a National SMART Grant-eligible major. These students would not receive their first National SMART Grant until 2008–09, three years into the program. Finally, the third cohort consists of high school students who might have been motivated by the National SMART Grant program to enroll in rigorous science courses in 11th grade. These students would not be eligible for their first National SMART Grant until 2010–11.

Purpose of the Study

MPR Associates and JBL Associates are assisting the Department of Education in evaluating the ACG and National SMART Grant programs during the first four years (through 2009–10). Through this study, the Department seeks answers to the following questions:

· What lessons can be learned from the early implementation of the program that will lead to program improvement? Are there identifiable unintended consequences?

· How do states differ in their definitions of “rigorous secondary school program of study,” and do states differ in the rate at which Pell Grant recipients complete the course work required under these definitions to qualify for an ACG or major in the specified fields to qualify for a National SMART Grant?

· Do financial incentives induce more economically disadvantaged high school students to complete a rigorous program of study and to enroll and succeed in postsecondary education? What is the gap between students in lower- and higher-income families in meeting the standards of the ACGs and National SMART Grants? Will this gap be narrowed?

· Is the availability of National SMART Grants associated with an increase in the proportion of Pell Grant recipients who major in and receive degrees in mathematics, science, engineering, technology, and critical languages? If so, will this affect the overall number of majors in these fields nationally? How do Pell Grant recipients with National SMART Grants differ from those without them?

This report synthesizes information gathered during the first year of the study, which covers the first year that grants were awarded (2006–07). It is too early to measure the impact of the program on student behavior or outcomes such as high school course-taking, enrollment, and completion, or to examine whether the National SMART Grants provide students with an incentive to major in mathematics and science. Therefore, first-year activities focused on the following:

· Identifying and describing implementation issues from the perspective of major stakeholders by conducting interviews, reviewing documents, and monitoring stakeholder Web sites (Chapter 2).

· Comparing information on the state-specific rigorous high school programs approved by the secretary of education and on state high school graduation requirements (Chapter 3). 

· Examining 2006–07 participation in the programs overall, across states, by student characteristics, and (for National SMART Grants) by field of study using the COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File maintained by the Office of Federal Student Aid (Chapter 4).

· Analyzing historical data to determine national trends in high school course-taking and develop estimates of eligibility for ACGs and National SMART Grants (Chapter 5). This baseline information—obtained from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS), Beginning Postsecondary Student Aid Studies (BPS), National Postsecondary Student Aid Studies (NPSAS), and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)—will provide a benchmark against which to examine current and future participation in the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. 

· Summarizing Department of Education and stakeholder recommendations for improving the programs (Chapter 6).

This report summarizes the findings of these activities and presents recommendations designed to increase participation. Updates to this report will be provided after years two and three, and a final report on outcomes and impact will be prepared after the fourth year of the programs (2009–10). In addition to the annual data on participation presented here, several new data sources will be available to inform the study questions. The 2007–08 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:08), conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics, is currently collecting information from students on their knowledge of the ACG and National SMART Grant programs and whether these programs influenced their behavior. In addition, the research team will be analyzing student-level data from several states to examine changes in high school course-taking and transition to college. The impact of the programs will be evaluated as data become available. Multivariate analyses will be employed to the extent feasible, focusing on longitudinal state data.

**Chapter 2**

Early History of the ACG and National SMART Grant Legislation and Implementation Concerns 

In spring 2006, the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (National SMART) Grant legislation was drafted, passed by Congress, and signed into law. Congress allocated funding to be used to support incoming and continuing students for the 2006–07 academic year. As processing of financial aid applications typically begins in January, the timing of this legislation posed significant challenges for the U.S. Department of Education, colleges and universities, students and their families, and other stakeholders. Within a very short time period, the Department notified the public of this new source of potential financial aid; provided guidance and Interim Regulations to schools; set up processes to disburse funds to schools; worked with stakeholders to develop Final Regulations for 2006–07; and began the process of establishing regulations for subsequent years. The Department of Education engaged in extensive outreach efforts. Postsecondary institutions worked to identify eligible students and award these new grants, despite concerns about the administrative burdens created by new requirements. Amidst all the changes, funding allocated by Congress for the 2006–07 school year was awarded. 

This chapter addresses the following topics:

· Intent and history of the legislation, from passage through the 2006–07 school year (which is the focal point of the empirical work presented in this report), and subsequent changes in the legislation that will affect program operations in future years;

· Sources of information used to identify program modifications in the passage, implementation, and revision of the legislation;

· Changes in the implementation of the legislation—including notifying institutions and students about these new funding sources, developing Interim and Final Regulations, working with stakeholders, and disbursing the funds to institutions to award to eligible students; and 

· Salient concerns that arose that affected the initial awards in the 2006–07 school year, and how they were resolved. 

Information on the history and implementation of the ACG/National SMART Grant legislation and regulations during this initial period was collected in fall 2006 from experts representing key stakeholder organizations. During that same time, relevant documents were reviewed (including legislation, regulations, comments elicited in the negotiated-rulemaking sessions held in early 2007, and stakeholder Web sites) to gain a better understanding of the following:

· How implementation had progressed, primarily at the postsecondary level;

· How effective were marketing efforts targeted at postsecondary institutions, stakeholder organizations, students, and parents; and 

· Whether and how stakeholder concerns were resolved, and in what ways. 

**Intent, Goals, and History of the ACG and National SMART Grant Legislation**

The *Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005*(P.L. 109-171) (the act) established the Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC) and created the Academic Competitiveness and National SMART Grants. The legislation was drafted quickly, in a matter of days, without public hearings. Section 401A, Academic Competitiveness Grants, as drafted and enacted by Congress, was intended to

· Encourage and support states as they make high school a more rigorous, challenging, and relevant experience for all students; 

· Provide merit-based financial aid to low-income students;

· Encourage students to take more challenging courses in high school, making success in college more likely, according to research; and 

· Encourage students to pursue college majors in high demand in the global economy, such as science, mathematics, technology, engineering, and critical foreign languages. 

After the ACG and National SMART Grant programs were enacted, the Department of Education quickly undertook a series of actions to notify the public and institutions of the new legislation, to issue Interim Regulations, and to set up the mechanisms to disburse funds. There was very little time between the enactment of the programs in February and the fall academic terms when students were to receive financial aid. This compressed timeframe required the interim rules to be developed outside the normal “negotiated-rulemaking” process for drafting federal regulations. The interim rules were to be in effect for only the first two years. The Department issued these interim final rules, on which public comment was invited, for the new grant programs in July 2006. The Department also issued a series of “Dear Colleague” letters to address specific concerns. It issued Final Regulations for 2006–07 in November 2006, after the term had started and schools had already made awards to students based on the previous guidance available to them. The program continued to evolve as the Department responded to additional questions from stakeholders and as Congress revised the legislation twice.

Table 1 presents a summary of critical steps in the development of the legislation, regulations, and the Department of Education’s guidance in interpreting the regulations, beginning with the key legislative provisions. Appendix B offers a longer and more detailed summary of the history of the legislation, guidance, and regulations. 

**Table 1. Summary of the legislation, regulations, and the Department of Education’s guidance in interpreting the regulations**

Cont’d. next page.

**Table 1. Summary of the legislation, regulations, and the Department of Education’s guidance in interpreting the regulations—Continued**

**Complex Requirements and Rapid Implementation**

The complex requirements and rapid implementation of the ACG and National SMART Grant programs in the compressed first year created difficulties for all parties. Within this short time period, the Department of Education had to notify the public of this new potential source of financial aid; provide guidance and interim regulations to inform schools about how to award the 2006–07 funding and how to assess students’ ongoing eligibility; set up processes to disburse funds to schools; work with stakeholders to develop final regulations for 2006–07; and begin the process of establishing regulations for subsequent years. 

In addition to the regulations and guidance provided (as detailed in Appendix B), the Department tracked its own marketing efforts and reported that in this initial period it offered: 

· Webinars on ACG and National SMART Grants, reaching 4,505 online attendees; 

· In-person training on ACG and National SMART Grants at locations around the country, with 2,913 attendees; 

· Presentations at conferences of campus financial aid and campus fiscal officers—approximately 30 were given, with a total of more than 5,000 attendees; 

· Two Federal Student Aid Conferences with a total of more than 5,000 attendees; and

· Ongoing Web training sessions during which financial aid administrators could access the training on the Department’s Web site at anytime.

Because the legislation arrived just as postsecondary schools were reviewing applications for college admission and financial aid, schools had little time to add or adapt processes to permit them to review student college applications; create financial aid packages that included ACGs and National SMART Grants for potentially eligible students; verify initial student eligibility for the ACG and National SMART Grant programs; disburse grants to students; and consider how to track student progress and ongoing eligibility for further funding. 

States (and in some cases, school districts) had to consider whether they wanted to submit potential “rigorous programs of study” for consideration in 2007–08, high schools had to provide documentation (usually transcripts), and postsecondary institutions had to verify that students had taken the courses (or tests) to meet the criteria for a rigorous program of study—as defined by the secretary or by the state. 

Students, their families, and their advisors had to get information about the new ACG and National SMART Grant programs; assess their own eligibility, given their financial need and differing possible ways to qualify for the “rigorous program of study” requirement; and initially apply for Federal Pell and ACG or National SMART Grant funding in conjunction with their college applications. 

With different perspectives, needs, and tasks, stakeholders disagreed on many key issues. The timing of the new law, and the need to quickly process complex information, created additional stress. As financial aid awards are critical in determining where students choose to enroll, some institutions were placed in the position of creating financial aid packages without knowing whether a student actually would end up qualifying for an ACG program. And if the award process, confirmation of eligibility, and disbursement of funds were complex, then any subsequent auditing could be expected to be as complex, if not more so.

**Stakeholders’ Perspectives**

Interviews were conducted in fall 2006 with experts from key stakeholder organizations. Documentation and feedback from the negotiated-rulemaking sessions held in early 2007 and from stakeholder Web sites were collected and examined. Stakeholders were selected based on their role in implementing the ACG and National SMART Grant programs during the first award year. These stakeholders include a mix of representatives from high school and postsecondary organizations and offer a range of perspectives and insights into the regulatory and implementation problems posed by these two grant programs (Table 2). 

**Table 2. Stakeholder organizations relevant to the ACG and National SMART Grant programs**

Of the 23 organizations listed above, nine were contacted to participate in a formal interview. The following organizations were selected based on their level of involvement in first-year implementation activities. Most of them represent professionals who are responsible for disseminating information to students about these grant programs, handling student transcripts, or disbursing financial aid: 

*Directly Affected by Legislation*

· American Association of Community Colleges

· National Academic Advising Association

· National Association for College Admission Counseling

· National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators

· United States Student Association

*Indirectly Affected by Legislation*

· American School Counselor Association

· National Association of Secondary School Principals

· National Parent Teacher Association

Those directly affected by the legislation were primarily college-level organizations representing admissions, counseling, and financial aid staff members who had specific administrative concerns, such as the definition of “academic year,” transcript verification, determination of academic major eligibility, and disbursement of funds. College-level representatives were vocal about their concerns because the policy changes and implementation requirements of these grant programs directly affected the timing and organization of their work. 

Those indirectly affected by the legislation include high school representatives, academic advisors, and others who guide students’ academic development. High school-level organizations published little or no response to the regulations on their Web sites. 

High school and postsecondary administrators expressed significant concern about effectively implementing the ACG and National SMART Grant programs because of the short lead time between the legislation and the start of the school year, the limiting language of the law, inadequate staffing in key areas to address the additional administrative burden of transcript verification, and the need for increased communication and exchange of information among key stakeholders.

At the college level, administrators faced the challenge of verifying that students met the eligibility requirements, which in some cases may have required additional staffing or communication between departments with previously little or no communication. Although Title IV–eligible higher education institutions are required to have the administrative capacity to link financial aid to academic requirements, stakeholders reported that much of this process has been automated—at least at larger universities and colleges. To determine student eligibility for the ACGs and National SMART Grants, administrators and staff in several key departments had to provide very specific information and could not simply rely on computer programming to ascertain student eligibility.

**Development and Resolution of Salient Concerns**

Salient concerns affecting the implementation of the ACG and National SMART legislation, the number of grants, and their distribution are listed in Table 3.

**Table 3. Development and resolution of salient concerns**

Cont’d. next page.

**Table 3. Development and resolution of salient concerns—Continued**

**Eligibility Requirements for ACG and National SMART Grant Programs**

***Need, Merit, and Administrative Burden***

College officials, higher education organizations, the press, and even some members of Congress have expressed concern about the shift of federal aid policy from need- to merit-based aid and its effect on low-income students. Although need-based aid programs represent the bulk of aid dollars, spending on merit-based grants by institutions and states has increased more than spending on need-based programs since the 1990s (Heller 2006). Research on state merit-aid programs indicates that higher-income and racial majority students receive a disproportionate share of this aid (Heller 2004; Heller and Rasmussen 2002).

High school and postsecondary stakeholders raised the issue of the ACG and National SMART Grant programs’ merit component during the interviews. Even though all recipients of these awards must be eligible for a Pell Grant, some stakeholders were still concerned that the distribution of aid would shift from the low end to the high end of the Pell eligibility range, with concomitant demographic shifts. For example, in a joint letter to the Department, the Registrars and Admissions Officers and the Academic Advising Association voiced concern about Pell-eligible students for whom “the receipt of an ACG or National SMART Grant would be of critical importance. The very students, therefore, that would most benefit from these programs are arbitrarily denied an award.” 

Laurie Wolf, executive dean of students at Des Moines Area Community College, reported that only about 260, or less than 1 percent, of her school’s 28,000 students qualified for the ACG. Other school officials reported similar initial results, noting that many of their students attended school part-time, were not U.S. citizens, or were not taking the eligible majors. 

Because the ACG and National SMART Grant programs represented a shift away from the purely need-based aid standards used in other Title IV programs, implementation problems arose. Verifying student achievement in a prescribed way, at both the high school and postsecondary levels, required greater coordination among admissions officers, financial aid officers, and registrars, and in some instances imposed additional administrative burdens because existing systems were ill-equipped to meet the new demands for documentation. 

Traditionally, financial aid offices have not needed to evaluate transcripts in detail, so the ACG and the National SMART Grant programs required a new level of involvement and coordination between the registrar, the admissions office, and the aid officers. In response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the director of financial aid at Hope College wrote “[the Admissions Office staff] members have to leave their offices, walk across campus to the Office of the Registrar, and manually review high school transcripts on a weekly basis to ensure student eligibility for the ACG.” 

The counter argument is that these programs were designed to encourage academic and enrollment behaviors that contribute to successful and timely degree completion (Adelman 2006). These statutory requirements (direct entry into college from high school, full-time enrollment, and enrollment in degree programs) are aligned with previous research that identifies characteristics associated with degree attainment. Findings from Adelman’s 1999 report, *Answers in the Toolbox: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor’s Degree Attainment*, and its 2006 follow-up, *The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion From High School Through College*, indicate that high school preparation and academic performance, continuous enrollment, and the number of credits attempted during a student’s first year in college, all contribute to timely degree completion.

Getting higher grades, enrolling full-time in a degree program, and having completed a rigorous high school curriculum are all correlated with greater success in and after completing college. According to Heller (1997), because lower-income students are sensitive to small changes in college tuition, the promise of additional federal funds may prove to be key in improving students’ high school attainment and future college enrollment. 

**Requirements Common to ACGs and National SMART Grants**

***Federal Pell Grant Recipients***

The requirement that students be Federal Pell Grant recipients in order to receive ACGs or National SMART Grants makes sense on its face in terms of income limits and other factors. However, it excluded *some* students *enrolled in year-round institutions, or during summer terms*, who had exhausted their eligibility for Pell awards.

***Full-time Student Status***

The regulations also limited the award to full-time students by using a very specific definition of “full-time”: 12 credit hours per semester, quarter, or term, or 24 clock hours per week. Although starting college part-time is also a predictor of dropping out (Tinto 1998), stakeholders were concerned that this restriction would reduce access to college among low-income students, because they are more likely to attend college part-time than are higher-income students (Chen 2007; Berkner, He, and Cataldi 2002; O’Toole, Stratton, and Wetzel 2003). Low-income students jeopardize their probability of success in college by working too many hours while attending and may also have family obligations that result in part-time enrollment (Choy 2000; Goldrick-Rab 2006). Some stakeholders felt that providing ACGs and National SMART Grants to part-time students could reduce the need for these students to work too much while attending college and, thus, increase their likelihood of staying in school and completing their degrees. Although the statute did not initially allow for part-time students, H.R. 5715 has expanded eligibility to include all Pell-eligible students enrolled at least half time.

***Degree Program***

The original statutory language excludes ACG-eligible Pell Grant recipients who are enrolled in certificate programs but plan to enter baccalaureate programs; many respondents wanted to see this language changed to include certificate-seeking students. The exclusion of students enrolled in certificate programs is of particular concern to both community colleges and for-profit institutions because they enroll and graduate the bulk of these students. 

The American Association of Community Colleges thought the Department would expand eligibility to include certificate-seeking students after the negotiated-rulemaking sessions and was disappointed that the Department did not believe it had the authority to include these students. The association was committed to gaining eligibility for students enrolled in certificate programs and “found [the Department’s] rationale unconvincing in all respects,” which is why their representative at the negotiated-rulemaking sessions withheld her consent. They were “extremely upset” over this issue, which was one of two concerns that prevented negotiators from reaching a unanimous decision during the negotiated-rulemaking sessions that took place in spring 2007. 

In a letter commenting on the Interim Final regulations, George Boggs, president of the American Association of Community Colleges, noted that community colleges “confer more than 250,000 certificates each year in fields such as biotechnology, aerospace manufacturing technology, electronics engineering, and renewable energies.” 

*Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008* (H.R. 5715) passed by Congress in April 2008 and signed into law by President Bush on May 7, 2008, authorizes ACG eligibility for students attending a postsecondary certificate program that is no less than one year in length, or no less than two years in length, at a two- or four year degree-granting institution. The *Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008*(H.R. 4137), enacted Aug. 14, 2008, delays the enactment of this provision from January 1, 2009 to July 1, 2009.

***U.S. Citizenship***

During the first implementation year, the ACG and National SMART Grant programs were only available to U.S. citizens who were eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant. Although the Pell Grant program does not exclude students who are noncitizen permanent residents, the ACG and National SMART Grant programs are limited to students who are U.S. citizens. Stakeholders expressed frustration that this restriction was written into the original legislation as it further limited the reach of the grants, added to the problem of determining student eligibility, and excluded those Pell-eligible students who were noncitizen permanent residents (even if they otherwise met the requirements). The *Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008* has since fixed this by expanding eligibility to noncitizen permanent residents. 

**Additional ACG and National SMART Grant Requirements**

As initially enacted, the ACG program required completion of a rigorous high school program of study after Jan. 1, 2006, for first-year students, and after Jan. 1, 2005, for second-year students. Students who graduated from high school before Jan. 1, 2005, were ineligible for an award. Students needed to be in the first or second academic year in a two- or four-year degree-granting institution. If applying for enrollment in the first year, students could have no prior enrollment in college. If applying for enrollment in the second year, students needed a grade point average (GPA) of 3.0 for the first academic year. Neither the *Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008*nor*the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008*changed this*.*

As initially enacted, the National SMART Grant program required that students be in the third or fourth academic year of study at a four-year degree-granting institution and that they have an eligible major in the physical, life, or computer sciences, engineering, mathematics, technology, or a critical foreign language. Students needed to have at least a 3.0 GPA.

***Rigorous Program of Study***

Although the statute requires a “rigorous program of study,” it did not define what this might be. So, in a very short period of time, these requirements needed to be defined, so that schools and students could be notified. The secretary designated four ways for students to qualify. Of these, three required checking the students’ transcripts, and the fourth required knowing students’ scores on Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) exams. The initial avenues for eligibility for the ACG programs are described in detail in Chapter 3.

Respondents voiced concern about the potential administrative burden of verifying rigorous program completion, and the way in which a “rigorous” curriculum was initially defined in the statute. Community colleges found it particularly burdensome to verify high school courses taken by their students because many did not require a high school transcript for enrollment. 

All colleges and universities shared the burden of evaluating and processing a high volume of transcripts. Private institutions and large public research universities often enroll a large number of out-of-state students, so requiring staff to verify courses according to the state in which the curriculum was completed requires additional work. The National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs identified this administrative burden as one of the main barriers to proper implementation of the ACG program. Institutions must be versed in each state’s definition of a “rigorous secondary school curriculum,” which makes the process more time-consuming and complex. In addition, the course names listed on a student’s transcript may not match what the state defines as its “rigorous curriculum,” which would require the institution to contact the high school and verify the course description.

Some respondents questioned whether all students had access to rigorous programs of study. Currently, there is no federal source of information on course offerings that can be used to answer that question. Several studies have been published in the last two years that provide anecdotal data on the availability of rigorous curricula. A 2007 study by the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of California All Campus Consortium on Research for Diversity confirms that in California, many schools (especially those serving minorities) do not offer enough courses of the “a-g” course sequence needed to enter the University of California or the California State Universities. The a-g course sequence is an approved rigorous program of study that allows UC and CSU systems to offer assurance that Pell-eligible students met the course work requirement outlined in the statute. In February 2008, The College Board released its fourth annual *AP Report to the Nation* that talks about one potential way to measure access to rigorous curricula (and one of the approved Department ACG options)—the percentage of students taking an Advanced Placement (AP) exam. The data show that the percentage of students who took an AP exam, and the percentage that received a “3” or higher on an AP exam, increased between 2002 and 2007, which may indicate an increase in access.

These results are consistent with a 2007 report released by the California Council on Science and Technology and the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, which suggests there is a shortage of teachers with appropriate qualifications to teach mathematics and science courses. At the national level, a 2007 interim report on teacher quality under *No Child Left Behind (NCLB)* found that high poverty and high minority schools had a higher percentage of teachers who were not “highly qualified” (as defined by *NCLB*). Teachers in these schools also had less teaching experience and were less likely to have a degree in the subject that they taught.

***Academic Year***

The term “academic year,” specifically defined in Section 481(a) of the *Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005*, was used to determine the specific academic year in which a student was enrolled or had completed, thus determining the student’s initial and continuing eligibility for ACGs and National SMART Grants. The definition was also used to ensure that students did not receive more terms of funding than permitted under the statute. Institutions were required to develop a Title IV academic year definition for each academic program that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of that statutory definition. 

Initial confusion over the rules for the program led to errors in awarding aid. For example, *Inside Higher Ed* reported that 450 students were offered National SMART Grants at Utah State University in August 2006; one week later, 150 of these students were informed that in fact they were *not* eligible for the $4,000 grants. These students had taken too many academic credits to qualify under the definition of an academic year, which tied a student’s year in college precisely to the number of academic credits he or she had accumulated.

Under the Interim Final Regulations, academic year progress was defined both in terms of the minimum number of weeks of instructional time and in credit or clock hours. In a “Dear Colleague” letter (GEN-06-18), the Department acknowledged that it would be difficult for many institutions using a traditional term-based academic calendar to determine the actual number of weeks of instruction that a student would need to complete the number of credit hours in an academic year and allowed institutions to decide this on a student-by-student basis, using either of the following approaches:

· Assume that there were 30 weeks of instructional time for each increment of credit hours that makes up the institution’s Title IV academic year definition (e.g., 24 credit hours equals 30 weeks of instruction, or 30 credit hours equals 30 weeks of instruction)—with the proviso that an institution must also determine the actual number of weeks of instruction for a student who requests that such a determination be made or who questions whether he or she has completed an academic year; or 

· Determine the actual number of weeks of instruction that were included for the student to complete the number of credit hours in the institution’s Title IV academic year definition by reviewing the student’s academic record to see how many weeks it took the student to complete the credit hours earned—with the proviso that an institution may not assign any weeks of instruction to credits earned by the student from AP course work, IB course work, by testing out of a program or course, or from life experience, because those credits were not earned during attendance at a postsecondary educational institution, even though they apply toward completion of the student’s program, and thus are included in the credit hour component of a Title IV academic year. 

The Department offered the following illustrative example: 

A student begins enrollment at an institution that defines its academic year as 24 semester credits. The institution applies 24 credits that the student earned through AP toward completion of the student’s eligible program. The institution chooses to review the student’s academic record to determine the actual number of weeks of instruction (or the student requests that the institution do so). Since all the credits earned were from AP and there are no weeks of postsecondary instruction associated with AP credits, the student is still in her first academic year and is eligible for a first-year ACG award. 

Both administrators and leading college advocacy groups expressed concern about this part of the law. These stakeholders called the statutory definition of “academic year” unworkable and considered it to be the largest impediment to smooth operation of the programs. The definition of academic year progression outlined in the law also prevented negotiators from reaching a consensus about the regulations during the negotiated-rulemaking sessions. 

Stakeholders preferred that academic year be determined only by the student’s grade level or credits earned and his or her standing as defined by the institution, which is consistent with the definition of “year” used in other Title IV programs. 

The compliance and systems implementation manager at the University of South Carolina, Columbia campus, stated in his response to the Aug. 7, 2007, NPRM, “. . . [A]n inordinate amount of time and energy has been expended in trying to understand and work out the specifics . . .” of the academic year definition.  He argued that flexibility was needed, as it was not possible to reliably project a student’s eligibility. Eligibility could change from the initial point of determination due to a wide range of factors, including the timing of receipt of high school transcripts and AP or IB scores from the College Board; changes to the student’s major; late posting of transfer credits; grade changes (deferred, late, incomplete); and add or drop decisions and retroactive entrance or withdrawal. Such changes could affect the number of credit hours a student had accumulated, as well as the student’s GPA. 

His concerns were echoed by the senior vice president of advocacy and general counsel for the Career College Association: “Having to monitor and track grade level progression for the ACG and National SMART Grant programs in a manner that is different from all other *HEA* Title IV programs is confusing and burdensome to institutions, and can lead to unintentional errors by the institutions.”

The Department of Education responded that the definition of “academic year” as described in Section 481(a)(2) of the *Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005*includes the ACG and National SMART Grant programs, leaving little latitude for modifying the statutory requirements. 

Many stakeholders wanted the Department to keep the transitional guidelines established for the 2006–07 and 2007–08 academic years, because these guidelines provided greater flexibility and eased some of the administrative burden. 

***Changes Enacted by the*Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008*(H.R. 5715)***

Congress revisited many of these contentious issues in H.R. 5715 and revised the eligibility requirements for the ACGs and National SMART Grants. The grants can now be awarded to students enrolled less than full-time, to those in certificate programs, or to permanent residents. The legislation also deleted the “academic year,” allowing schools more flexibility in determining student standing. It also allowed students enrolled in demanding degree programs requiring more than four years of course credits to receive a fifth-year grant. In addition, Congress made clear that the states were to identify the programs of study to be considered as rigorous and to be used to determine student eligibility for ACG Grants. These revisions were slated to come into effect as of Jan. 1, 2009.

***Changes Enacted by the*Higher Education Opportunity Act*(H.R. 4137)***

On Aug. 14, 2008, Congress passed H.R. 4137, which reauthorized the *Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA)*. The *Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA)* extended the effective date to July 1, 2009, and strengthened state control over the defining rigorous secondary school programs of study.

**Regulatory Concerns**

As noted, the legislation was enacted quickly, and the initial interim regulations were as well. Stakeholders were generally frustrated with the administrative burden they felt the programs put on institutions and staff. In addition to general concerns about the difficulty of discerning which students were eligible based on the statutory limitations, stakeholders’ key concerns included (1) the mandated participation of postsecondary institutions; (2) using the four-year high school transcript versus only three years; (3) determining eligible majors for the National SMART Grant; and (4) calculating postsecondary GPAs for students. 

***Mandatory Participation***

In a letter to the Department, the student financial aid administrators expressed “serious concerns about requiring an institution to participate in the ACG and National SMART Grant programs if it wishes to continue its participation in the Federal Pell Grant Program . . . this requirement is an infringement of institutional autonomy.” Stakeholders also cited the short amount of time institutions were given to implement these programs as a reason to provide institutions with an option to participate. Some institutions were hesitant about making awards that might be called into question later because they were unsure about the appropriate procedures. And if the process of making the initial awards initially was difficult, any verification efforts and eventual audits were also difficult. In many cases, schools had to make financial aid awards—particularly for incoming students—and then verify later whether the students were in fact eligible. 

In its response to the negotiated-rulemaking sessions, the Department said it was not going to change the Interim Regulations in order to ensure that students with financial need could receive all the federal grants to which they were entitled. If the program was voluntary and some schools chose not to participate, it could have created a “separate but unequal” situation where otherwise eligible students would be missing out on the chance to receive additional grant funds based on the school they decided to attend. This situation may also have had a significant effect on students’ choice of schools. 

***Four-year Transcript***

Postsecondary institutions were required to base ACG awards on students’ four-year high school transcripts instead of three or three and a half years of high school work, which is what most institutions receive from their applicants during admissions. In a joint letter to the Department, the American Council on Education (ACE) and seven other stakeholder organizations called this requirement a “breathtaking new administrative burden,” and the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC)—in a separate letter—said this would be especially difficult for community colleges, because “many if not most of them do not collect high school transcripts” and because they “tend to provide an ‘open door’ admissions policy, and instead use front-end testing instruments to determine student readiness for particular programs.” According to the president of Glendale Community College, “This has added additional manual evaluation time to our processes. Also, because of the many variables, we have not found a way to automate this program other than to select those who have received this grant in the prior year. All eligibility review and tracking is a manual process.” This sentiment was echoed by the director of financial aid at Plymouth State University, “The processing requirements needed to identify eligible ACG students is excessive. . . . The ACG program requires extreme manual processing.”

The Department has no plans to modify this part of the regulation, as the statutory language specifies that a student must have graduated from high school having completed a rigorous program of study in order to qualify for the ACG award. The November 2006 Final Regulations stated that a four-year high school transcript must be reviewed in order to ascertain whether the student has met the curricular eligibility requirements.

***Eligibility for National SMART Grants Based on Academic Major and Course Work***

The initial list of eligible academic majors for the National SMART Grant was published in a “Dear Colleague” letter (GEN-06-06) published May 2, 2006, and was initially intended to apply to both the 2006–07 and the 2007–08 school years. 

Stakeholders expressed several concerns about the list of eligible majors, questioning perceived omissions and noting the need for a mechanism to add additional majors to the approved list. Stakeholders objected to the omission of certain majors, such as food science. Stakeholders also questioned whether students attending institutions that lacked particular eligible “majors” could receive National SMART Grants if they were taking the relevant coursework.

In another “Dear Colleague” letter (GEN-07-06), extending the list of majors for the 2007–08 school year, the Department stated, “We apologize for the timing of this notification, as we know that the academic year is beginning and you may have already completed many of your financial aid packages. However, institutions must provide National SMART Grants to all potentially eligible students, including those in the additional majors, for the 2007–08 award year.” The additional eligible majors included food science, food technology and processing, and other fields. (See Appendix B.) 

Initially, under Section 691.15(c)(2)(ii) of the program regulations, a student was eligible to receive a National SMART Grant if the student enrolled in the courses necessary both to complete the degree program and to fulfill the requirements of the intended eligible major. Departmental guidance on implementing this provision initially stated that eligibility for a National SMART Grant for a payment period was based on the student being enrolled during that period in coursework that may include the courses in the National SMART Grant-eligible major *or* other courses that make up the student’s National SMART Grant-eligible program, or both (see the *2007–08 Federal Student Aid Handbook*, pp. 3–70). 

In October 2007, the Department subsequently revised its guidance in a “Dear Colleague” letter (GEN-07-07) by stating that an otherwise eligible student could receive a National SMART Grant for a payment period *only* if the student were enrolled in at least one course that meets the specific requirements of the student’s National SMART Grant-eligible major. If the student were enrolled only in courses that satisfied the general education requirements of the National SMART Grant-eligible program, but not in any courses that were specific to the major, he or she would *not* be eligible for a National SMART Grant payment for the semester.

The final regulations for the National SMART Grant Program, published on Oct. 29, 2007 (72 FR 61248), provided a mechanism for institutions of higher education to request that additional majors be designated as eligible, so that otherwise eligible students in those majors could receive National SMART Grants. The “Dear Colleague” letter GEN-08-02, published on Feb. 6, 2008, detailed the process to be used to propose additional eligible academic majors and invited institutions of higher education to submit requests for additional majors to be designated as eligible for the National SMART Grant Program for the 2008–09 award year. In response to DCL GEN-08-02, institutions submitted 33 requests for additional eligible majors, proposing that 26 new majors be included. Of these, two were already on the revised list (computer and information sciences and nutrition science). The remaining 24 proposed new majors were rejected as inconsistent with the statutory requirement that majors must be in the physical, life, or computer sciences, mathematics, technology, or engineering, or a critical foreign language in order to be eligible for a National SMART Grant. The list of eligible academic majors as published in DCL GEN-07-06 will not be changed in the 2008–09 award year.

***Postsecondary Grade Point Average***

How postsecondary grade point averages (GPAs) were to be computed became another complex issue. To receive a second-year ACG, a student had to have a cumulative GPA of at least 3.0 from the first academic year. Students receiving a National SMART Grant needed a cumulative 3.0 GPA for their eligible program of study (not just the courses in the major). 

Stakeholders representing college financial aid administrators and registrars were concerned with how postsecondary GPAs should be calculated, particularly for transfer students and students entering an institution with AP or IB diplomas. They questioned the need to calculate GPA by academic term for National SMART Grant eligibility and also expressed confusion about whether the statute is referencing cumulative GPA in all courses taken during the term or just those in a student’s major for the National SMART Grant. (As indicated above, it is *not* just courses in the major.) 

The final regulations released in October 2007 clarified some additional concerns about institutions that use numeric scales other than 4.0, and how to calculate the GPA for transfer students—including grades awarded in courses accepted for credit by the receiving school. The Department added language to the final regulations that instructed institutions that use other numeric scales to ensure that “its minimum GPA requirement meets the same numeric standard as a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher on a 4.0 scale.” 

**Ongoing Concerns**

***High School Counseling—Course-taking, Rigorous Program of Study, and Applications to Colleges and for Financial Aid***

The ACG and National SMART Grant programs added another component to an already complex array of state, institutional, private, and federal aid programs. Previous research found a general lack of understanding of student aid by potential recipients (Berkner and Chavez 1997; Choy 2001; Horn and Nuñez 2000). Despite the Department’s concern, as expressed in the Academic Competitiveness Council’s report (May 2007), that student access to postsecondary schooling is “limited because of inadequate information and a confusing financial aid system,” the ACG and National SMART Grant programs are as complex, if not more so, than other federal aid programs due to the level of coordination needed between and within high schools and postsecondary institutions—issues particularly mentioned by stakeholders. The ACG and National SMART Grant programs use multiple criteria for defining a “rigorous program of study”—including State Scholar’s initiative for 24 states, other recognized state programs, use of complete four-year high school transcripts, tracking “academic year” for students’ initial and continued eligibility, and the need to recalculate GPA each term for National SMART Grant recipients.

Initially, during the first implementation year, the Department notified students who completed a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form and were eligible for a Pell Grant that they might also be eligible for an ACG or National SMART Grant award. Students were asked to confirm their eligibility status online. Colleges were forwarded a list of self-identified eligible students and were asked to verify that these students were indeed eligible (e.g., met the rigorous curriculum requirement for an ACG, met GPA and major field requirements for a National SMART Grant). Administrators and counselors had little chance to notify students and families about these programs. Financial aid officials who had already started—or in some cases finished—their financial aid packaging for the 2006–07 academic year had to incorporate the new awards into their financial aid budget. For the 2008–09 academic year, students will be able to indicate potential eligibility on their FAFSA form, which should simplify the student self-identification process, although institutions will still be required to verify eligibility.

Several stakeholders who were interviewed suggested that states find a way to link ACG eligibility to college admissions requirements and define requirements corresponding to the state college and university admissions requirements. A small number of states already do this. The University of California system, for example, has a set curriculum that is required for admission and also meets ACG requirements, while the state of Florida has identified its Bright Futures Scholars program as a recognized ACG course of study and notified institutions about which students are eligible. At the institutional level, Brigham Young University contacted all students who self-identified on their FAFSA as ACG-eligible and also contacted all other students who appeared eligible but did not self-identify. 

***State Graduation Requirements and Postsecondary Requirements***

All the stakeholders interviewed felt that offering a rigorous high school curriculum to students would result in better academic preparation and future college success. They expressed concern, however, that not all states have college-prep curricula available at all high schools, especially in low-income areas, which means many Pell-eligible high school students might be excluded. Some states do not mandate all high school districts to offer the courses required to meet the rigorous curriculum course work requirements. Schools in states without a defined curriculum may not have the necessary courses available. 

The Department has noted that, since the ACG and National SMART Grant programs were enacted, at least 14 states have chosen to add graduation requirements that would increase the number of program-eligible students who graduate from public high schools. However, these changes are most likely not attributable to the ACG program, because changes in state curricula are typically years in the making.

***High School Advising—College Preparatory Courses, Financial Aid, and College Applications***

High school guidance and college admissions offices are often understaffed and overcommitted. Unless students start taking a required sequence of classes early in their high school career, they will be ineligible for the ACG because they have inadequate time to complete their prerequisites if they have not done so by the time they are juniors or seniors.

High school counselors also may play a crucial role in disseminating information about these grants to eligible students. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that improving counseling by increasing the number of counselors, providing professional development, and improving both the quantity and quality of time spent with each student are all significantly related to college access, especially for low-income students (McDonough 2005). The American School Counselor Association reported that only half of the states currently mandate school counselors. Having an inadequate counseling staff weakens the connection necessary to inform high school students and their families about the ACG program.

Institutions, postsecondary administrators, and high school counselors all voiced concern about communication and exchange of information between those professionals responsible for student aid and the members of the counseling and advising community, who for the most part have only general knowledge of student aid programs and no knowledge of whether an individual student is, or will be, eligible for a Pell Grant. High school counselors know about the rigorous curriculum requirements of the ACG, but they can only identify potential Pell-eligible students through their participation in the National School Lunch Program or financial planning workshops. Even though most counselors have access to copies of the FAFSA forms, they may not have detailed knowledge about how students and their families apply for financial aid. School counselors do not necessarily have any structured preparation in college counseling, so they may be working with limited information. Most degree programs for counselors do not include information about financial aid.

An Academic Advising Association member identified that communicating the ACG requirements to academic advisors and high schools is a key challenge. Another challenge, according to this member, was involving high school counselors in reviewing the program eligibility requirements before students enroll at a postsecondary institution. A comprehensive college awareness campaign cited online by the Department is the Indiana Commission on Higher Education’s *Learn More Indiana* initiative, which includes a Web site and magazine that targets students beginning in the eighth grade. 

California passed legislation in July 2006 authorizing $200 million to be spent on hiring more counselors at the elementary and high school levels in order to improve postsecondary enrollment. In March 2007, the American School Counselors Association and the National Association for College Admission Counseling together petitioned Congress for increased funds for existing counseling programs. These efforts, along with providing the counseling community with current information on the academic requirements for the ACG and National SMART Grant programs, will be very important to their success.

**Conclusion**

The complex requirements and rapid implementation of the ACG and National SMART Grant programs in the very compressed first year were difficult for all parties. The ACG and National SMART Grant programs were signed into law in February 2006, with funding to be awarded for the 2006–07 academic year. Within this short time period, the Department of Education notified the public of this new source of potential financial aid; provided guidance and interim regulations to inform schools about to how to award the 2006–07 funding and assess students’ ongoing eligibility; set up processes to disburse funds to schools; worked with stakeholders to develop final regulations for 2006–07; and began the process of establishing regulations for subsequent years. The Department of Education engaged in extensive outreach efforts, primarily to the postsecondary institutions and associations most directly concerned with these programs, but also, through the Department Web site, directly to students and families. Amidst all the changes, funding allocated by Congress for the 2006–07 school year was awarded. Chapter 4 describes how that aid was distributed by schools and to students. Chapter 5 offers a baseline comparison, showing what might have been expected in awards, given the initial eligibility requirements for ACGs and National SMART Grants. 

As noted, stakeholders interviewed for this report expressed concerns about the ACG and National SMART Grant requirements and their experiences enacting these programs during the first implementation year. Many identified compliance with the eligibility requirements as specified initially by Congress and as defined in regulations issued by the Department as being most problematic. Stakeholders recounted the administrative burdens they encountered in attempting to admit students, devise financial packages, and determine (and redetermine) eligibility and award funds. Congress subsequently revised the eligibility requirements as part of the changes in H.R. 5715, and again in the passage of H.R. 4137.

**Chapter 3**

Rigorous High School Programs 

A key requirement of the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) program is that students complete a rigorous high school program as defined by the secretary of education. The secretary provided three options (described below) for the first two years of the program (2006–07 and 2007–08) and accepted all existing state-established advanced and honors diploma programs as “rigorous.” In addition, the secretary gave states until June 1, 2006, to request recognition of other programs. For the first year of the ACG program, the secretary approved at least one advanced, honors, or other program in 40 states, and more than one program in 22 states.

In addition to recognizing students who have completed rigorous high school programs, states are increasing high school graduation requirements. As of summer 2006, 26 states and the District of Columbia had scheduled changes to take effect over the next few years, all of which will make it more difficult to graduate from high school. Some changes involve increasing the number of courses to be completed in certain subjects or overall, and others address course level or content.

Of particular interest is whether there is variation by state in the percentage of Pell Grant recipients who receive ACGs and, if so, what might explain the variation. One possibility is variation in the rigor of the approved rigorous high school programs. If rigor varies, participation rates might be higher in states in which it is easier to qualify. Another possibility is variation in states’ high school graduation requirements. Pell Grant recipients in states with more demanding standards might receive ACGs at higher rates, for example. The rest of this chapter presents a comparison of the approved state programs and state high school graduation requirements across states to provide a context for comparing participation rates across states and, later, over time.

**U.S. Department of Education Definitions of a Rigorous High School Program**

**1.  Participating in the State Scholars Initiative (SSI)** (offered in selected districts in 22 states in 2006). The SSI is a national initiative funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) and administered by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). It is designed to motivate high school students to complete a rigorous course of study that prepares them for success in postsecondary education or training and in their future careers. To achieve recognition, students in participating states must complete all state-mandated high school graduation requirements and also the following course work: four years of English; three years of mathematics (including algebra I, algebra II, and geometry); three years of laboratory science (biology, chemistry, and physics); three and a half years of social studies (chosen from U.S. and world history, world geography, economics, and government); and two years of a language other than English.

**2.  Completing a curriculum similar to the State Scholars Initiative (SSI)**. This option, referred to hereafter in this report as the *ED course-based curriculum,* is available to high school students in all states and within each state to students attending high schools that offer the courses. The requirements are slightly less demanding than those of the SSI, with more flexibility in meeting the mathematics, science, and social science requirements and a reduced language requirement. To qualify under this option, students must earn passing grades in the following: four years of English; three years of mathematics (including algebra I and a higher level course such as algebra II, geometry, or data analysis and statistics); three years of science (including at least two courses chosen from biology, chemistry, or physics); three years of social studies; and one year of a language other than English.

**3.  Completing at least two Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) courses.**Students are required to pass these two courses with a score of 3.0 or higher (out of 5.0) on the AP exams or 4.0 or higher (out of 7.0) on the IB exams. This option is available to students in all states, but not necessarily in all schools. In 2002–03, 67 percent of public high schools offered AP courses, and 2 percent offered IB courses (Waits, Setzer, Lewis, and Greene 2005). However, students can take AP courses through independent study (or online in some states). 

**4.****Completing an existing advanced, honors, or other approved program.** In most cases, the approved programs were unique to a state, but seven states were approved to use the *High Schools That Work (HSTW)* Award of Educational Achievement. Some of the state programs were based solely on completing specific courses, while others had additional or different requirements.

In every state, students potentially had at least two ways to meet the rigorous high school curriculum: the ED course-based curriculum and passing AP or IB courses with sufficiently high scores (assuming their schools offered all the required courses and that they had access to AP or IB courses). Students in states participating in the SSI had a third option, and those in states with approved state programs had at least one more option and sometimes several. Figure 2 shows how many states provided their students with various numbers of options.

**Approved State Programs**

Table 4 lists all the approved state programs and, for those that were course-based, compares the requirements with those of the ED course-based curriculum. It also presents a comparison of the mathematics and science course content requirements. Types of other requirements, if any, are also indicated. In the 35 states with course-based approved programs, every approved program required four years of English. In all but two states, the approved programs required at least three years of mathematics, including algebra I and a higher-level course. Most approved 

programs required three years of science and social studies, although a few specified more or fewer. Of the programs requiring three years of science, a majority required that at least two courses be chosen from biology, chemistry, or physics (the same as required in the ED course-based curriculum). 

Approved state programs differed from the ED course-based curriculum most notably in the language requirement, tending to have either no language requirement at all or to require more than one year of language. Many state program requirements gave students a choice of subjects, such as a language other than English, art, or performing arts. Because students could avoid taking another language, the program was not considered here to require a language other than English.

***Some approved state programs appeared to be more demanding than the ED course-based curriculum, and some appeared to be less demanding but meaningful comparisons are difficult.***

Table 5 compares the requirements for course-based approved state programs with those of the ED course-based curriculum, considering only the core subjects mentioned in the latter. State programs that required more courses in one or more of the subjects and at least the same number in all of the rest were considered more rigorous. State programs that required fewer courses in one or more subjects and the same in the others were considered less rigorous. State programs that had higher requirements in some subjects but had lower ones in others were categorized as difficult to compare. The comparisons are summarized in Figure 3, which shows that of the 35 states with course-based approved programs, just 13 states had approved programs that were at least as rigorous as the ED course-based curriculum. Another 16 states had at least one approved program that was less rigorous, most often because it did not require students to take a language other than English (Table 4). However, it is not certain whether course work standards for students were less rigorous in those states, making easier to qualify for an ACG there. Some state programs had credit requirements in other subjects or requirements in addition to credits, such as minimum GPAs or state exams that could make qualifying more difficult. Also, nothing is documented about the content of the courses in any state. 

**State High School Graduation Requirements**

***High school graduation policies vary considerably from state to state.***

A few states leave graduation requirements entirely up to local districts, but most specify the number of credits needed in total and in certain subjects. Table 6 provides the number of courses required in each state in each of the five subject areas named in the ACG eligibility requirements, along with the total number of credits required for a standard high school diploma. In no state are high school graduation requirements currently as rigorous as the ED course-based curriculum. In other words, merely meeting the minimum requirements for graduating from high school would not be sufficient to make a student eligible for an ACG

in any state. The language requirement for the ACG is a major reason, because only a few states require any credits in a language other than English. Many states require the same *number* of credits in English, mathematics, science, and social studies as does the ED course-based program (Figure 4), and six states require the same number of courses in all these subjects (Table 6). However, states often do not specify the *level* of the courses in which those credits must be earned. 

***The implications of state differences in high school graduations requirements for ACG participation are difficult to ascertain.***

One might expect higher ACG participation in the states with the most rigorous high school graduation requirements but comparing states on these grounds is difficult. Some states simply specify a number of credits needed for a diploma, while others specify a particular level that must be reached in some or all subjects or describe content that must be included. Another factor that complicates comparisons is that these requirements are sometimes minimums, with local districts adding their own requirements. Consequently, the state minimum may not be a true reflection of what some or even most high school graduates in that state are actually required to complete. Yet another complicating factor is that some states have exit exams in addition to course requirements, and the content of these exams varies (Center on Education Policy 2007). Because of the difficulty in comparing states, it is not feasible to categorize states definitively according to the rigor of their requirements or to compare planned changes.

**Conclusion**

Considerable variation exists across states in the rigor of the approved state programs and in high school graduation requirements. Differences in ACG eligibility and participation rates can therefore be expected now and over time. Additional states may request approval for new programs, and states may add new options for qualifying or change requirements for already approved programs. In addition, many states are increasing their high school graduation standards, requiring students to complete more courses or more difficult courses. It will be important to monitor these changes because they may help to explain state differences in ACG participation rates. It is possible that high school graduation requirements in some states could eventually increase to a point when all graduates would meet the course requirements for an ACG, in which case high ACG participation rates would be expected. 

**Chapter 4**

ACG and National SMART Grant Participation in 2006–07

This chapter presents an overview of the participation in the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (National SMART) Grant programs in 2006–07, the first year of their implementation. The analysis is based on data provided by the Office of Federal Student Aid. The file used contains student-level records of all Pell Grant recipients, merged with information from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and ACGs and National SMART Grants awarded for the 2006–07 academic year (see Appendix D for more details).

All of the students who received these grants also received Pell Grants, which are only awarded to low- and moderate-income students. The analysis sometimes compares ACG and National SMART Grant recipients with other Pell Grant recipients who did not receive ACGs or National SMART Grants, and at other times it shows the percentage of all Pell Grant recipients who also received an ACG or National SMART Grant. All Pell Grant totals and comparisons are limited to those institutions that participated in the ACG or National SMART Grant programs. Participating institutions are defined as those that awarded at least one ACG or National SMART Grant. It should be noted that Pell Grant students are not required to be enrolled full-time, but those with ACGs or National SMART Grants are. The information summarized in the text and figures that follow is shown in much more detail in the tables in Appendix E. 

**ACG Program**

***In 2006–07, about 2,800 institutions participated in the ACG program, and almost 300,000 Pell Grant recipients were awarded an ACG.***

The U.S. Department of Education identified about 3,600 postsecondary institutions that awarded associate or bachelor’s degrees, were eligible to participate in the Federal Pell Grant program, and were therefore also eligible to participate in the ACG program in 2006–07. About 2,800 of these institutions (78 percent) participated—that is, they awarded at least one ACG. Institutions participating in the Pell Grant program were required to participate in the ACG program, but not all institutions that awarded Pell Grants would necessarily have students who qualified for an ACG, especially those offering primarily certificate programs (as do many private institutions). Public four-year institutions and public two-year institutions had the highest participation rates (94 and 87 percent, respectively), and for-profit two-year institutions had the lowest rates (28 percent) (Figure 5). Participating institutions enrolled about 4.5 million Pell Grant students, representing over 90 percent of the total 4.9 million Pell Grants awarded at all ACG-eligible institutions. Additional details about institutional participation are provided in Appendix Table E-1.

Of the 300,000 ACG recipients, 174,000 (more than half) were enrolled in public four-year colleges, 76,000 in private nonprofit four-year colleges, and 36,000 in public two-year colleges. Most of the rest were at four-year for-profit colleges (11,000), and the remainder were at private for-profit or not-for-profit two-year institutions. At the public and private nonprofit four-year colleges participating in the ACG program, about one-quarter of all first- and second-year students with Pell Grants also received an ACG; at the public two-year institutions, only 3 percent of the first- and second-year Pell Grant students did so (Figure 6). Students at two-year institutions are less likely to enroll full-time (Horn and Nevill 2006) and, even when enrolled full-time, are less likely to have completed a rigorous program (Appendix Table F-2). Additional details about the number of recipients are presented in Appendix Table E-2.

***About 80 percent of first-year ACG students received the maximum $750 award, and about 70 percent of second-year ACG students received the maximum $1,300 award.***

ACG, National SMART, and Pell Grants are disbursed to students on a term-by-term basis. Students in colleges with typical semester calendars receive one-half of the award for each semester enrolled, or one-third of an award for each trimester. Among the first-year ACG students, 83 percent were enrolled for the entire academic year and received the maximum $750; 1 percent were enrolled for two trimesters and received $500 (two-thirds); 14 percent were enrolled for one semester and received $375 (one-half of the maximum); 1 percent were enrolled for one trimester and received $250; and the remaining 1 percent received some other amount****(Figure 7). The average ACG amount for first-year students was $685.

Among second-year ACG students, 72 percent were enrolled for the entire academic year and received the maximum $1,300; 2 percent were enrolled for two trimesters and received $867 (two-thirds); 20 percent were enrolled for one semester and received $650 (one-half of the maximum); and the remaining 6 percent received some other amount. The average ACG for second-year students was $1,125. 

There are a number of reasons why students may have received one-half or two-thirds of a total award. Some of the students dropped out after one semester, and some were first enrolled in the second semester. About 2 percent of ACG students (4,600 students) changed class level during the year and received $375 for the first term and $650 for the second term ($1,025 total). Among second-year students, some were only eligible for one semester because they became third-year students in the second semester. For example, about 1,700 students received a one-half ACG ($650) in the first term as second-year students, and then a one-half National SMART Grant ($2,000) in the second term as third-year students.

The amounts other than full-year, one-half of a year, or two-thirds of a year either reflect other calendar systems (such as nontraditional calendars, for which the appropriate partial term amounts cannot be determined) or awards that were reduced because the full amount would have exceeded the students’ need. The low proportion of students in this category (1 percent) indicates that very few (if any) ACG recipients had their grant restricted because their need was exceeded.

***There was a wide range in the number of grants awarded at institutions, but about half of all participating institutions awarded fewer than 50 grants.***

Participating institutions awarded an overall average of 107 ACGs, with an average of 335 at public four-year colleges, 93 at private nonprofit four-year colleges, and 41 at public two-year colleges (Appendix Table E-3). Overall, about half of all participating institutions awarded fewer than 50 ACGs (Figure 8 and Appendix Table E-4). Public four-year institutions handled higher volumes than other types of institutions, with about half awarding 200 or more ACGs. See Appendix Table E-5 for additional details on the distribution of ACGs.

***About three-quarters of all ACGs were awarded to first-year students.***

Overall, 76 percent of ACGs awarded in 2006–07 went to first-year students (Figure 9). Second-year recipients had to meet the same requirements as first-year recipients and also had to have a GPA of at least 3.0 at the end of their first year. The fact that many fewer second-year students than first-year ones received ACGs in 2006–07 suggests that many second-year students were unable to meet the GPA requirement. Other contributing factors might be less awareness of the program among second-year students or institutional difficulties in verifying the high school course-taking of second-year students, but there is no particular evidence to support either.  

Because the ACG program was not in effect when 2006–07 second-year students were in their first year, they would not have been aware at that time (2005–06) that an ACG would be available to them in 2006–07 if they earned a 3.0 GPA. In contrast, first-year ACG recipients in 2006–07 may have been motivated by their grant to earn a 3.0 GPA and maintain full-time enrollment in order to keep it. If this was the case, the proportion of grants awarded to second-year students should increase in 2007–08. 

***Over 60 percent of the ACG recipients were women, and over half were age 18 or younger.***

In the ACG program and the Pell Grant program in general, the majority of the students were women. Among the first- and second-year students with ACGs, 63 percent were women, and among those who received only Pell Grants (no ACG), 67 percent were women (Figure 10). Appendix Table E-8 presents more details. 

Because the ACG program requires students to be recent high school graduates and to be in their first two years of college, it is not surprising that 54 percent of ACG students were age 18 or younger, and nearly all of the rest were between age 19 and 23. In contrast, among the first- and second-year Pell Grant students who did not receive an ACG, nearly one-half were age 24 or older. Reflecting their age, 96 percent of the ACG recipients were dependent students, in contrast to 41 percent of first- and second-year students who only received Pell Grants and no ACGs (Appendix Table E-9).

***Although all ACG recipients were from lower-income families, they tended to come from families with higher incomes than students who received only Pell Grants.***

Seventeen percent of the dependent ACG recipients came from families with incomes over $40,000, compared with 10 percent of the first- and second-year students who received only Pell Grants. In addition, 19 percent of the dependent ACG recipients came from families with incomes under $10,000, compared with 28 percent of the Pell Grant students who did not receive an ACG (Figure 11 and Appendix Table E-9). 

The federal Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is a measure of a family’s financial strength and indicates how much of a student’s and family’s financial resources (for dependent students) should be available to help pay for their education. The EFC is used to determine the Pell Grant amount. Students with a zero EFC are the neediest, and are therefore eligible for the maximum Pell Grant award. Among dependent first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients, the percentage of students who received an ACG was directly related to the EFC level. Among students with a zero EFC, 15 percent received an ACG; among students with an EFC of 3,000 or more, 29 percent received an ACG (Figure 12 and Appendix Table E-10). 

***Dependent students with a zero EFC received a somewhat lower average ACG than students with higher EFCs, but they received a larger average combined Pell Grant and ACG amount and about one-third of the total ACG dollars.***

Dependent ACG students with a zero EFC received an average ACG Grant of $760, while students with a higher EFC received a little more than $800 on average (Figure 13 and Appendix Table E-10). However, students with a zero EFC received the largest average amount of combined ACGs and Pell Grants ($4,600). The combined average amount decreased as the EFC increased because the Pell Grant amount (which is based on the EFC) decreased. Students with an EFC of 3,000 or higher received somewhat more from their ACGs ($810) than their Pell Grants ($630).

Figure 14 and Appendix Table E-11 present how ACG and Pell Grant dollars are spread across EFC levels. Students with a zero EFC received 46 percent of all Pell Grant dollars and 32 percent of the ACG dollars. Students with an EFC of 1,000 or more received a greater share of ACG dollars than Pell Grant dollars. See Appendix Table E-12 for more detail. 

***The most common way to qualify for an ACG was to complete the ED course-defined high school curriculum.***

Figure 15 displays the percentage of ACG recipients who qualified by various criteria. The majority (57 percent) of the ACG recipients qualified on the basis of completing the ED course-based curriculum. Another 35 percent qualified by meeting the requirements of a state-designated program of courses, and the remaining 5 percent on the basis of AP or IB courses. About 2 percent each qualified through the State Scholars Initiative in a participating state or the way they qualified was unclear. It should also be noted that many students would have qualified on more than one basis, and the one that was reported was decided by the college attended (presumably, the easiest one to identify).

***Participation rates varied widely by state.***

Table 7 shows how the states rank by the percentage of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients at four-year institutions who also received an ACG and were residents of that state (irrespective of whether they attended a college in the same state). The percentage ranged from a high of 32 percent (Massachusetts residents) to a low of 4 percent (Alaska residents). Table 7 also displays which states had an approved rigorous high school program that was aligned with the standards for admission to a public four-year college in that state. As discussed later in Chapter 6, the Department of Education has encouraged states to submit admission standards for approval as rigorous as a way to increase ACG participation. Of the states with the five highest ACG award rates, three (Massachusetts, California, and Pennsylvania) had their four-year college admission standards approved as rigorous for the purpose of determining ACG eligibility. However, of the 17 states that had their standards accepted as rigorous, 11 had lower than average ACG award rates. Thus, having admission standards approved does not appear, in itself, to be sufficient to promote high ACG participation. 

Appendix Table G-1 displays participation data by state arranged alphabetically (including students in both two- and four-year institutions) and Appendix Table G-2 shows data by state for students in two-year institutions, ranked by ACG participation rate at the two-year level. 

***With such a wide range of types of ACG qualification within different states, it will be an analytic challenge to demonstrate a relationship between ACG participation and state high school standards.***

Table 8 shows the states ranked by percentage of resident first- and second-year Pell Grant students who received an ACG—including students at both two- and four-year institutions—and shows the number and percentage distribution of ACG recipients by type of ACG qualification. There are major variations by the students’ state of residence, but there is no clear relationship between ACG participation rates and the type of qualification. For example, Tennessee and Mississippi student residents have the highest rates of qualification through the State Scholars Initiative, but they rank below average in ACG participation. The data in this table also highlight a problem in assuming that the student’s state of residence is the same as the state where the student attended high school. About 2,000 ACG recipients qualified on the basis of state-designated programs that were not the same as their state of residence. 

National SMART Grant Program

***In 2006–07, about 1,400 institutions participated in the National SMART Grant program, and 62,000 students received a National SMART Grant.***

The requirements for participation in the National SMART Grant program less stringent than for the ACG program. The institution must be eligible for participation in the Pell Grant program and offer bachelor’s degrees in one of the designated science, mathematics, engineering, technology, or critical language fields. The U.S. Department of Education identified about 2,100 institutions that were potentially eligible, and 1,425 participated in the first year of the program by awarding at least one National SMART Grant. The institutional rates of participation were 88 percent at public four-year, 65 percent at private nonprofit four-year, and 41 percent at for-profit four-year institutions (Figure 16). The participating institutions enrolled about 2.5 million Pell Grant students, or nearly 90 percent of the total 2.8 million Pell Grant students at all National SMART Grant-eligible institutions. Additional details about institutional participation are provided in Appendix Table E-1.

Of the 62,000 students who received a National SMART Grant, 42,000 were enrolled in public four-year institutions, 16,000 in private nonprofit four-year institutions, and 4,000 in for-profit four-year institutions. Because eligibility was restricted to a small number of fields of study, only a little more than 5 percent of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant students at participating institutions received a National SMART Grant (Figure 17). Additional details about the number of recipients are presented in Appendix Table E-2.

***About 60 percent of National SMART Grant students received the maximum $4,000 award, and about 30 percent received one-half or two-thirds of the maximum award.***

National SMART Grants, ACGs, and Pell Grants are disbursed to students on a term-by-term basis. Students who were awarded National SMART Grants at colleges with semester calendars received $2,000 for each semester enrolled as a third- or fourth-year student; those in colleges with trimesters received one-third of the award ($1,333) for each trimester. About 60 percent of the National SMART Grant students received the full-year award of $4,000; about one-fourth received one-half ($2,000), and about 7 percent received one-third or two-thirds ($1,333 or $2,667) (Figure 18). Seven percent received some other amount, including those who were enrolled in colleges with nontraditional calendars (primarily for-profit institutions). In addition, some of the students with other amounts may have had their National SMART Grant award

reduced because it exceeded their need. About 3 percent of the National SMART Grant recipients (1,700 students) had received one-half of an ACG in the first semester (as a second-year student) and then one-half of a National SMART Grant in the second semester (as a third-year student). About 7 percent (4,600 students) who received National SMART Grants were third-year students in the first semester and then became fourth-year students in the second semester. These students would only be eligible for one-half of a National SMART Grant in the next year, because they had already received one-half of the award as a fourth-year student.

***There was a wide range in the number of grants awarded at institutions, but more than one-third of institutions awarded 10 or fewer National SMART Grants.***

The average number of National SMART Grants awarded was 80 at public four-year colleges, 20 at private nonprofit four-year colleges, and 50 at for-profit four-year colleges (Appendix Table E-3). A large majority of institutions awarded 50 or fewer National SMART Grants: 38 percent awarded 10 or fewer, and 42 percent awarded between 11 and 50 (Figure 19).

About one-fourth of the public four-year institutions awarded over 100 National SMART Grants, but 90 percent of the private nonprofit four-year and for-profit four-year institutions awarded 50 or fewer (Appendix Tables E-4 and E-5). 

***The distribution of awards by class level was relatively even.***

As indicated earlier, there was no major difference in National SMART Grant participation by class level, with about 5 percent of students participating in both years (Figure 17). From a different perspective, 40 percent of the National SMART Grant awards went to third-year students, 7 percent to students who were in both the third and fourth year at different times in 2006–07, and 52 percent to fourth-year students (Figure 20). Additional details on participation by class level and type of institution are shown in Appendix Table E-7.

***Nearly 60 percent of the National SMART Grant recipients were men.***

Although the majority of students in the Pell Grant program are women, more men than women received National SMART Grants in 2006–07 (Figure 21), reflecting the predominance of men in eligible fields. Over the past decade, women have gained ground in some, but not all, of these fields. For example, between 1995–96 and 2005–06, the percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded to women increased in physical sciences or science technologies (from 36 to 42 percent) and in biological or biomedical sciences (from 53 to 62 percent) (Planty et al. 2008, Indicator 27). At the same time, between these two years, the percentage of degrees awarded to women remained stable in mathematics and statistics (46 and 45 percent, respectively) and engineering or engineering technologies (16 and 18 percent, respectively) and declined in computer or information sciences (from 28 to 21 percent). Appendix Table E-8 presents more details on the demographic characteristics of National SMART Grant recipients.

One-third of the National SMART Grant recipients were age 24 or older, and about 40 percent were independent students.

National SMART Grant recipients were younger than third- and fourth-year students who received only Pell Grants. Although one-third of the National SMART Grant recipients were age 24 or older, one-half of the students who received only Pell Grants were that age (Figure 21 and Appendix Table E-8). About 60 percent of the National SMART Grant recipients were still dependent students, compared with about 40 percent of the third- and fourth-year Pell Grant students who did not receive National SMART Grants (Appendix Table E-9).

***The family income of dependent students who received National SMART Grants was slightly higher than that of their peers who received only Pell Grants.***

The income difference was not as great as among ACG recipients. Eighteen percent of the dependent National SMART Grant recipients came from families with incomes of $40,000 or more, compared with 14 percent of third- and fourth-year students who received only Pell Grants (Figure 22 and Appendix Table E-9). At the same time, 21 percent of dependent National SMART Grant recipients came from families with incomes under $10,000, compared with 24 percent of students with only Pell Grants. The incomes of independent students were not

provided in the data file, but they are usually very low compared with the parental incomes of dependent students. 

The federal Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is a measure of the student’s ability to pay for college and is used to determine the Pell Grant amount. Students with a zero EFC are the neediest, and are therefore eligible for the maximum Pell Grant award. Among dependent third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients, the percentage of students who also received a National SMART Grant was directly related to their EFC level. Among students with a zero EFC, 6 percent received a National SMART Grant, compared with 8 percent of dependent students with an EFC of 1,000 or more (Figure 23). The relationship between EFC and National SMART Grant receipt is not as strong among independent students: 3.4 percent of Pell Grant students with a zero EFC received a National SMART Grant, compared with 3.6 percent of those with an EFC of 3,000 or more (Appendix Table E-10). 

***There was little variation in the average National SMART Grant among dependent students at different EFC levels, although students with zero EFCs received the largest share of grant dollars.***

The average National SMART Grant among dependent students was about $3,300 regardless of EFC level (Figure 24 and Appendix Table E-11). However, the average combined Pell Grant and National SMART Grant declined as EFC increased. Students with a zero EFC received an average combined Pell and National SMART Grant of $7,100. Students at the higher end of the EFC range received a relatively small average Pell Grant ($631), but an average National SMART Grant of $3,300. Students with a zero EFC received the largest share of National SMART Grant dollars (28 percent) (Figure 25 and Appendix Table E-12). They also received one-third of the combined ACG and Pell Grant dollars. 

***Life science was the most common major of National SMART Grant recipients; very few majored in a critical language.***

The distribution of all National SMART Grant recipients by field of study is displayed in Figure 26. The largest proportion of National SMART Grant students majored in the life sciences (38 percent), followed by engineering (21 percent), computer science (16 percent), physical sciences (10 percent), mathematics (7 percent), technology (5 percent), multidisciplinary studies (3 percent), and critical foreign languages (1 percent). See Appendix Table E-13 for details.

***Public four-year institutions awarded the largest number of National SMART Grants, concentrated in the life sciences and engineering.***

The largest concentrations of National SMART Grants were awarded in the life sciences and in engineering at public four-year institutions (17,100 and 10,100, respectively) (Figure 27 and Appendix Table E-13). About two-thirds of all the National SMART Grants were awarded to students in public four-year institutions, about one-quarter to students in private nonprofit four-year institutions, and only 6 percent to students in for-profit four-year institutions.

Public four-year institutions awarded 70 percent or more of the National SMART Grants in all of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields except computer science (Figure 28 and Appendix Table E-13). Private nonprofit four-year institutions awarded more than 40 percent of the National SMART Grants in foreign languages and multidisciplinary studies. 

***Nearly all the National SMART Grants at for-profit institutions were in computer science or technology, and for-profit institutions awarded one-third of all National SMART Grants in computer science.***

For-profit four-year institutions awarded about 3,300 National SMART Grants in computer science and 600 National SMART Grants in technology. These two fields accounted for 99 percent of the National SMART Grants awarded at for-profit institutions (Appendix Table E-13). One-third of the National SMART Grants in computer science were awarded at for-profit institutions (Figure 28).

***Participation rates varied widely by state, with no obvious patterns.***

The percentage of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant students who also received National SMART Grants ranged from 14 percent at participating institutions in Utah to 2 percent at participating institutions in the District of Columbia. Table 9 shows how states rank by the percentage of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant students who also received a National SMART Grant at participating institutions in that state. It also shows the percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded in National SMART Grant-eligible fields by the institutions in that state. There does not appear to be a direct relationship between the National SMART Grant participation rate at institutions in a state and the percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded in National SMART Grant-eligible fields by institutions in that state. The observed variation by state could reflect different levels of diligence in administering the program, but differing proportions of students meeting the other eligibility requirements—full-time attendance, U.S. citizenship, and maintaining a cumulative GPA of 3.0—could also contribute.

**Chapter 5**

Baseline Information

In addition to collecting information on implementation problems and analyzing first-year participation data, the authors of this study examined trends in high school course-taking and used historical data to develop estimates of the numbers of students who would have been eligible for the grants at various points in time (had the programs existed at the time). As this study continues, this baseline information will provide a context within which to interpret data on current and future participation in the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (National SMART) Grant programs.

**Trends in High School Course-taking**

Because a key objective of the ACG program is to motivate high school students to take rigorous courses, information on trends in high school course-taking provides important contextual information for interpreting changes over time. For example, if high school students are taking increasingly rigorous courses over time, this will have to be factored in to estimate the effects of any increase attributable to the ACG program.

Because the ACG and National SMART Grant programs were implemented in 2006–07, none of the surveys or data collections conducted to date by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) include recipients. Nevertheless, two national studies can be used to help develop baseline estimates of the percentages of students who complete a rigorous high school curriculum, how these estimates have changed over time, and how completion of a rigorous curriculum varies with family income. These are the High School Transcript Studies (HSTS), which are conducted periodically (most recently in 2005) as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and the Education Longitudinal Study (ELS), which includes transcripts for a nationally representative sample of students who graduated from high school in 2004. The HSTS allow tracking of course-taking over time (but not reliably by income), while ELS provides the opportunity to examine course-taking by family income (but not over time). 

***The percentage of high school graduates completing a rigorous curriculum has increased over time, and******about half of all high school graduates now complete the ED course-based high school curriculum.***

The percentage of high school graduates meeting all the requirements of the ED course-based curriculum increased from 32 percent in 1990 to 48 percent in 2000 and 54 percent in 2005 (Figure 29). The percentage completing four years of English and three years of social studies has always been high: 85 percent or more in each of the three years. The percentages meeting the ED-specified course work in mathematics, science, and a language other than English have increased notably, however, especially between 1990 and 2000. In each of the three years, the science requirement (taking two courses from biology, chemistry, or physics) appeared to be the most difficult to meet. 

A relatively small—but increasing—percentage of high school graduates are completing the more difficult State Scholars Initiative course requirements: 4 percent in 1990, 11 percent in 2000, and 15 percent in 2005. Students were least likely to meet the social studies requirement (41 percent), which is very specific compared with the ED course-based curriculum, and the science requirement (43 percent), which requires all three of the major laboratory science courses (biology, chemistry, and physics). 

Participation in AP and IB courses is increasing. According to the NAEP transcripts, 10 percent of high school graduates in 2000 and 18 percent in 2005 completed at least two such courses. However, their scores are unknown, making it impossible to estimate how many would have been eligible for an ACG on this basis, which requires a score of 3 or higher (out of 5) for AP courses and 4 or higher (out of 7) for IB courses.

***Low-income high school graduates tend to be less well-prepared academically than their higher-income peers.***

The ELS transcripts indicate that, overall, 44 percent of all 2004 high school graduates completed the ED course-based curriculum (lower than the 54 percent shown in the 2005 HSTS) (Appendix Table F-1). No reasons have been determined other than that the studies were a year apart and both are sample surveys, but NCES-published reports indicate differences in the same direction as well. 

For this analysis, the same programming code was used to determine whether the students met the various requirements, so that is not a source of the difference.

Among all high school graduates, low-income graduates (those from families with annual incomes of $50,000 or less) were considerably less likely than their higher-income peers to complete the full ED course-based curriculum in 2004 (36 vs. 51 percent) (Figure 30). They were also less likely than their higher-income peers to complete the required course work in mathematics and science, but not in English or social studies. Unfortunately, it is not possible with these data to determine to what extent these differences are related to student interest and preparation versus course availability at their high schools.

***Among high school graduates who entered college within a year of finishing high school, the income gap in completing all course requirements remained but was less pronounced.***

Among this group, 54 percent of low-income students had completed the ED course-based curriculum, compared with 62 percent of their higher-income counterparts (Figure 31). In most subjects, the differences were relatively small, but just 73 percent of the low-income graduates had met the science requirement, compared with 82 percent of higher-income graduates. Low-income high school graduates who enrolled full-time in community colleges were much less likely than their counterparts at four-year colleges to have completed the rigorous curriculum (39 vs. 63 percent) (Appendix Table F-1). Again, it is not possible with these data to determine to what extent these differences are related to student interest and preparation versus course availability at their high schools.

If the SSI requirements were the standard for ACG eligibility, only 13 percent of all low-income high school graduates who enrolled in college full-time would qualify (Figure 31). Again, the most notable income gap was in science. As with the ED course-based curriculum, low-income high school graduates who enrolled full-time in community colleges were much less likely than their counterparts at four-year colleges to have completed the rigorous curriculum (7 vs. 17 percent) (Appendix Table F-2).

ELS transcripts indicate whether students took AP or IB courses, although they do not show their scores. Among graduates who enrolled full-time in postsecondary education within a year and whose family income was $50,000 or less, 23 percent had completed at least two AP or IB courses, compared with 30 percent of their higher-income counterparts. The College Board (2008) also reports increases in the numbers of students taking AP exams. The percentage of public high schools offering AP courses is greater in suburban areas (87 percent) than in cities (77 percent), towns (72 percent), and rural areas (50 percent) (Waits et al. 2005), which suggests that higher-income students have more access to these courses. 

**Estimates of Eligibility for ACGs and National SMART Grants**

Information on the eligibility of students for ACGs and National SMART Grants informs two important questions related to implementation and program design: 

· Are all eligible students actually receiving grants? 

· What criteria are Pell Grant recipients not meeting? What are the greatest barriers to participation? 

None of the NCES-sponsored postsecondary sample surveys is recent enough to include any ACG or National SMART Grant recipients. Nevertheless, data from two surveys—the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) and its longitudinal component, the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS)—can be used to help address the questions posed above. In addition, NPSAS:08, currently in the data collection phase and expected to be released in 2009, will provide information on awards received and on students’ knowledge of the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. Finally, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) can be used to examine trends in the number of degrees awarded in National SMART Grant-eligible majors. A brief summary of these surveys is included in Appendix D. Additional details on sample size and survey methodology for all NCES surveys are available at: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/. Actual participation of ACGs and National SMART Grants may differ from the eligibility estimates due to problems with the data used in the estimates as well as problems with implementation that may have caused eligible students not to receive awards.

ACGs

The BPS longitudinal studies conducted by NCES include representative samples of students who enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time in 1995–96 and 2003–04. The BPS data can be used to estimate how many of these students would have been eligible for an ACG if these grants had been in place when they enrolled—that is, how many recent high school graduates (those who graduated after January 1995 for the first cohort or 2003 for the second) enrolled in a degree program at a two- or four-year institution, were U.S. citizens, received Pell Grants, attended full-time, and completed approximations of the ED course-based high school curriculum. 

BPS does not provide precise descriptions of students’ course-taking, because high school transcripts were not collected for either cohort. However, students who took the SAT or ACT reported their course-taking when they took the tests, and this information was added to the BPS file. Students reported the number of courses they took in various subjects, but not the level. In the estimates presented here, students were assumed to have completed the ED course-based curriculum if they completed four years of English, three years each of mathematics, science, and social studies, and one year of a language other than English, and to have completed the SSI curriculum if they completed these courses except two years (rather than one) of a language other than English.

These definitions are less restrictive than the actual ED course-based and SSI rigorous curricula because they do not take into account the specific courses or levels required in various subjects. As a result, estimates of ACG-eligible students derived from BPS criteria will be an overestimate of the actual number. However, the Education Longitudinal Study (ELS) transcript data (which do show course-taking levels) suggest that the BPS-generated estimate may not be too far off. As reported earlier, 54 percent of low-income 2004 high school graduates who enrolled in college full-time within a year had completed the ED course-based curriculum requirement (Figure 31). Using this same population, but considering only the number of courses in each subject (not the level) increases this estimate just 6 percentage points—to 60 percent. In other words, if low-income students who enrolled in college full-time immediately after high school had completed the requisite number of courses in the required subjects, they would have been very likely to achieve the levels needed to meet the ED course-based program.

***Based on BPS, approximately 282,300 first-time, first-year students would have been eligible for an ACG in 2003–04 had the program existed, more than double the number who would have been eligible in 1995–96.***

About 2.1 million beginning postsecondary students graduated from high school after January 2003 and enrolled in a degree program in 2003–04 (Table 10). Of these, 96 percent were citizens, 28 percent were also Pell Grant recipients, and 24 percent attended full-time as well, thus meeting the nonacademic requirements for an ACG (Figure 32). However, just 13 percent (or about 282,300) met these conditions *and* also completed the ED course-based curriculum, which would have made them eligible for an ACG if the program had existed at the time (Table 10). In other words, just over half of the first-year students who met the nonacademic requirements met the course-taking requirements as well.

The 13 percent who would have been eligible for an ACG in 2003–04 had the program existed then was almost twice as many as would have qualified in 1995–96 (7 percent). This increase represents the combined effect of greater percentages of beginning postsecondary students receiving Pell Grants, attending full-time, and completing a rigorous high school curriculum. The actual number who would have been eligible was more than twice as high (123,500 vs. 282,300) because the number of high school graduates enrolling in college right after high school also increased.

Had the program existed in 2003–04, the largest numbers of ACGs would have been awarded to students at public four-year institutions and to students at moderately selective institutions, although the eligibility *rates* were not always higher at these two types of institutions than at others (Table 11). Students with a zero Expected Family Contribution (EFC)—that is, the lowest income students—were less likely to be eligible than those with higher EFCs (29 vs. 36 percent), suggesting that the lowest income students may be less likely to meet the course-taking requirements or enroll full-time. Compared with Pell Grant recipients overall, ACG-eligible students were more likely to be female and white and to attend four-year institutions and very or moderately selective institutions (Figure 33).

National SMART Grants

Conducted most recently in 2003–04, the NPSAS is conducted on a nationally representative sample of all postsecondary students. It can be used to estimate the number of third-year and higher students who would have met the eligibility requirements for a National SMART Grant had the program been in place at that time—that is, were U.S. citizens, received a Pell Grant, were enrolled full-time, had a GPA of 3.0 or higher, and were majoring in mathematics, science (physical, life, or computer), engineering, technology, or certain foreign languages considered critical to the national interest. The next NPSAS, being conducted in 2007–08, will ask students who have received ACGs and National SMART Grants about their knowledge of these programs.

***Based on NPSAS, approximately 80,600 third-year or above students would have been eligible for National SMART Grants in 2003–04, up from 69,600 in 1995–96.***

Of the 5.3 million undergraduates who were in their third year or above in bachelor’s degree programs in 2003–04, 1.4 million received Pell Grants, and just 80,600 would have been eligible for National SMART Grants (Table 12). Very few students in their third year or above met all the requirements for a National SMART Grant. While 24 percent were both U.S. citizens and 

Pell Grant recipients, just 18 percent met these two conditions *and* were enrolled full-time, only 9 percent also had a GPA of 3.0 or higher, and only 2 percent met all these requirements and also majored in an eligible field (Figure 34). 

In 1999–2000, there were fewer undergraduates in their third year or above (4.4 million), fewer Pell Grant recipients (1.1 million), and fewer who would have qualified for National SMART Grants (69,600). However, the overall *rate* at which students would have qualified for National SMART Grants and the percentages who met each condition would have been about the same in 1999–2000 as in 2003–04 (2 percent)(Figure 34). 

The fact that 60,000 National SMART Grants were actually awarded suggests that about 75 percent of potentially eligible students received awards. While implementation difficulties suggest that some students may have been missed, it is difficult to determine precisely how many because (as indicated above) the major codes used to estimate the number of eligible students do not match the National SMART Grant-eligible fields exactly.

**Trends in Degrees Awarded in National SMART Grant Majors**

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) is useful for tracking changes over time in the number of degrees awarded in National SMART Grant-eligible majors. The survey collects, on a regular basis, data on the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded by major field of study at all U.S. postsecondary institutions that participate in federal student financial aid programs. 

***The proportion of bachelor’s degrees awarded in National SMART Grant-eligible majors was about the same (15–16 percent) in 1995–96 as it was in 2005–06.***

Between these two years, the total number of bachelor’s degrees awarded increased by 34 percent (from about 1.1 million to 1.5 million), and the number of degrees awarded in National SMART Grant-eligible majors grew by 37 percent (from about 174,000 to 239,000) (Table 13). As a result, the proportion of bachelor’s degrees awarded in these majors remained about the same during this period.

Table 14 shows the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded in National SMART Grant-eligible majors in each state, ranked from highest to lowest based on the number of awards in 2005–06. It also shows the proportion of all bachelor’s degrees that were awarded in these fields. Five states accounted for more than a third of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in National SMART Grant majors: California (11 percent), New York (7 percent), Pennsylvania (6 percent), Texas (6 percent), and Illinois (5 percent).

For-profit four-year institutions awarded relatively more bachelor’s degrees in National SMART Grant majors in 2005–06 than did public or private nonprofit institutions (23 percent vs. 17 and 13 percent, respectively) (Table 15). Overall, however, for-profit institutions awarded just 6 percent of all degrees in National SMART Grant majors. A majority (67 percent) of all degrees in National SMART Grant majors were awarded at public four-year institutions.

**Conclusion**

Based on analysis of data collected before the ACG and National SMART Grant programs existed, approximately 280,000 first-year students (and an unknown number of second-year students) would have been eligible for an ACG, and 80,000 would have been eligible for a National SMART Grant had these programs existed a few years earlier. As the participation data described in the previous chapter showed, actual participation was lower. For both ACGs and National SMART Grants, each eligibility requirement reduces the number of Pell Grant recipients eligible for the grants, but the academic requirements appear to pose the greatest barrier.

The ACG estimates also showed that the percentage of students meeting the eligibility criteria differed between 1995–96 and 2003–04. This pattern of change is consistent with the analysis of course-taking data that showed an increase between 1990 and 2005 in the percentage of students completing a rigorous high school program. Whether the percentages will increase further is unknown, but high school graduation standards continue to rise, suggesting that they may. 

The proportion of students earning degrees in National SMART Grant-eligible fields has remained stable, despite extensive efforts to attract students into these fields. At the federal level alone, a recent inventory identified almost 100 programs with a mathematics or science education focus (U.S. Department of Education 2007).

**Chapter 6**

Summary of U.S. Department of Education and Stakeholder Recommendations

During the first year, recommendations for improving the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (National SMART) Grant programs have come from a number of sources, including the U.S. Department of Education, stakeholders, and participants in the negotiated-rulemaking process. These recommendations suggested ways to solve administrative problems and also to increase the number of eligible students. The following recommendations come directly from the stakeholder organizations cited in Chapter 2 and from the Department of Education.

As discussed in Chapter 2, the Department clarified much of the confusion surrounding interpretation of the legislation during the negotiated-rulemaking process. The Department responded to some concerns, but it took the position that certain changes could not be made without modifying the legislation. Thus, recommendations to lessen some of the eligibility restrictions were not accepted.

The recommendations described here are based on suggestions from the Department and from stakeholders. They seek to help maximize the implementation and reach of the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. In many cases, stakeholders have taken the initiative to correct the areas that most concerned them about the first-year implementation process. Some school districts, institutions, states, and organizations have developed ways to improve marketing efforts to middle and high school students and have taken the initiative to create training materials for administrators and other key educational staff. 

**U.S. Department of Education**

The U.S. Department of Education’s Web site provides examples of solutions to many of the issues that institutions faced during the first-year implementation of these grants. A summary of the Department’s suggestions to stakeholders follows.

***Increasing the Number of Eligible Students***

The Department has urged high school and postsecondary staff and administrators, states, and organizations to

(1) Know the state’s “rigorous curriculum”;

(2) Commit to doubling the number of ACG and National SMART Grant recipients by 2010–11; and

(3) Provide low-income students with access to rigorous course work.

***Identifying Eligible Students***

The Department cites three examples of innovative ways to identify eligible students. They suggest that institutions and states develop a “core curriculum for college admissions.” States can also send institutions a list of students who qualify for the ACG based on their completion of this core curriculum. Institutions can work with all Pell Grant recipients to determine their eligibility, instead of relying on a student’s self-identification.

***Marketing the Programs***

The Department suggests that states can incorporate information about these grants into existing state, local, and school-level outreach programs and materials. As an example, they cite the Indiana Commission on Higher Education’s college outreach program called Learn More Indiana. Beginning in the eighth grade, students receive a magazine on postsecondary enrollment. Students and parents have access to a Web site on college and receive information on college financing, and information on the ACG and National SMART Grant “are presented as options in every contact with students and high school counselors.”

***Providing Access to a Rigorous Curriculum***

The Department recommended that states can make their college preparatory curriculum the standard curriculum required for graduation. States can also develop their own incentive programs that target and reward low-income students who complete rigorous course work. The Department highlights Minnesota, for example, which in 2007 enacted the ACHIEVE Scholarship that gives an additional $1,200 to low-income students who complete a rigorous high school curriculum. The Department also recommends standardizing high school curricula within states so that (1) the standard course requirements meet the rigorous curriculum requirements outlined by the Department, and (2) ensuring that the curriculum offered is aligned with college admissions requirements. Confusion about program requirements would naturally decrease by reducing the complexity of high school pathways to college. The Arkansas Department of Education, also referenced by the Department, requires high school students to complete a college prep curriculum called *National SMART Core*, which they have actively marketed throughout the state.

**Stakeholders**

The stakeholder recommendations echo those of the Department, but they also call for an increased federal role in devising and applying solutions to the implementation problems faced by stakeholders.

***Increased Marketing Efforts***

All of the stakeholders interviewed for this study felt there should be increased marketing efforts for these programs. They believed that increased communication and coordination among states, students, parent organizations, and other stakeholders would contribute to the success of the grants and would extend their reach. The stakeholders suggested that this information would be best delivered by using existing vehicles, such as partnering with parent organizations, including the information with the Department’s recommendations for parental involvement provisions (as part of the reauthorization of the *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001*), sending information through athletic coaches, or having schools distribute information with report cards. 

According to the stakeholders who were interviewed, the National SMART Grant programs could be better marketed by working with major advisors, displaying information in financial aid offices, and working with teachers’ unions and community representatives. Members from the United States Student Association (USSA) suggested that e-mail would be a good way to reach students, and many financial aid offices have e-mail distribution lists. The USSA also mentioned that there needs to be much broader support and buy-in from the community and faculty to increase the impact of these grants on students. Pell Institute staff mentioned existing support services that target students in low-income schools—the TRIO and GEAR UP programs, which reach students beginning in the sixth grade and provide college counseling—and the Talent Search program, which focuses on financial aid as well.

Several stakeholders suggested that states may also want to consider adding their own financial incentives to encourage low-income students to complete rigorous course work in high school, similar to the Indiana’s *Learn More Indiana* college outreach initiative, cited in Chapter 2. 

***Training Programs/Workshops on Financial Aid***

Several stakeholders suggested that the Department work with other stakeholders to develop a training program on college financial aid options. These training programs, or workshops, could be geared toward students, parents, teachers, guidance counselors, or financial aid administrators. They also created a PowerPoint presentation for schools and colleges to download, describing the different financial aid options available to students and their families.

The National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACADA) reported that a member survey showed that the majority of college admissions counselors do not know much about financial aid, with 75 percent wanting more training in this area. The counselors said that their most trusted sources of financial aid information are college aid staff and the state and federal governments. NACADA is trying to encourage its membership to use the Department’s Information for Financial Aid Professionals (IFAP) Web site, but members only spend one-third of their time on college counseling and the rest on other job responsibilities. Members currently consider the ACG program “complex,” and an Association survey suggests that admissions counselors need more support in understanding it. Members prefer print resources over Web resources because they can be easily copied and distributed to students and parents. This is especially true in low-income schools, when admissions counselors often lack the resources to access online materials. 

Both the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators and the American Association of Collegiate Registrars have developed materials for their members that explain the intricacies of the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. The Student Financial Aid Administrators have developed and distributed a presentation for financial aid administrators to use during high school presentations. Many of the programs with which the Council for Opportunity in Education works, such as Upward Bound and Talent Search, are based on college campuses, so precollege training is connected to the college—which facilitates persistence and retention. The representative from the Pell Institute said their leaders were surprised that there was not much marketing or training for these programs.

***Transcript Notation***

Several stakeholders asked that high schools or states determine which students may be eligible for the ACG program by noting on their high school transcripts that they have completed a rigorous high school program. Doing so would reduce the burden on open enrollment institutions, such as community colleges, and other colleges and universities that receive a large number of out-of-state applications. For example, Texas and Florida are able to annotate students’ transcripts if they have met the ACG high school eligibility requirements. The Association of State Student Grant Programs suggested that high schools or states could partner with the National Student Clearinghouse to collect high school transcript data. The clearinghouse is already a repository of degree, diploma, and enrollment data for postsecondary and high schools and districts and meets the *Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act* (*FERPA*) confidentiality and security requirements.

***Increased Communication Between High School and College Counselors***

According to the stakeholders interviewed, more work needs to be done on bridging the gaps between high school and college counseling, although it is unclear what role the federal government may play in this work. A number of issues were raised by stakeholders that contribute to the disconnect between these two important groups: a college curriculum that does not include course work on financial aid, understaffing, limited communication between high schools and local colleges, and so on. 

***Financial Aid Toolkit***

Stakeholders also recommend creating a toolkit that would provide an easy-to-use resource for school counselors, students, teachers, and stakeholder organizations, such as the National PTA and USSA, to help facilitate and improve communication on financial aid issues. The toolkit would provide material that could be used in the classroom, as part of a college readiness curriculum, or on its own. It could include audience-specific worksheets and handouts that could be easily copied and distributed.

***Regular Stakeholder Feedback***

The Department should continue to give stakeholders a forum in which to share their experiences in implementing the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. Given that much of the success of these programs relies on the accurate and timely dissemination of information at the middle and high school levels, future feedback sessions should be broadened to include other elementary and high school stakeholders, such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), National Middle School Association (NMSA), American Association of School Administrators (AASA), and National Education Association (NEA). These sessions could take the form of national surveys and could even be broadened to capture feedback from students, parents, and teachers.

References 

Achieve, Inc. 2006. *Closing the Expectations Gap 2006: An Annual 50-State Progress Report on the Alignment of High School Policies With the Demands of College and Work*. Washington, D.C.: Author. http://www.achieve.org/files/50-state-07-Final.pdf (accessed April 3, 2007).

Adelman, Clifford. 1999. *Answers in the Toolbox: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor’s Degree Attainment*. PLLI 1999–8021. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

———. 2006. *The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion From High School Through College*. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Berkner, Lutz, and Lisa Chavez. 1997. *Access to Postsecondary Education for the 1992 High School Graduates*. NCES 98-105. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Berkner, Lutz, Shirley He, and Emily Forest Cataldi. 2002. *Descriptive Summary of 1995–96 Beginning Postsecondary Students: Six Years Later*. NCES 2003-151. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Binder, Melissa, and Philip T. Ganderton. 2004. “The New Mexico Lottery Scholarship: Does It Help Minority and Low-Income Students?” In *State Merit Scholarship Programs and Racial Inequality*, edited by D. E. Heller and P. Marin. Cambridge, Mass.: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

Center on Education Policy. 2007. *State High School Exams: Working to Raise Test Scores*. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Chen, Xianglei. 2007. *Part-Time Undergraduates in Postsecondary Education: 2003–04*. NCES 2007-165. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Choy, Susan P. 2000. *Low-Income Students: Who They Are and How They Pay for Their Education*. NCES 2000-169. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

———. 2001. *Findings from the Condition of Education 2001: Students Whose Parents Did Not Go to College: Postsecondary Access, Persistence, and Attainment*. NCES 2001-126. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.****

The College Board. 2008. *The 4th AP Report to the Nation*. New York: Author.

Cornwell, Christopher Mark, Kyung Hee Lee, and David B. Mustard. 2006, January. *The Effects of State-Sponsored Merit Scholarships on Course Selection and Major Choice in College*. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1953. http://ssrn.com/abstract=880430 (accessed May 20, 2008).

Dynarski, Susan. 2002, December. *The Consequences of Merit Aid*. Working Paper #9400. National Bureau of Economic Research. 

Finkelstein, Neal D., and Anthony B. Fong. 2008. *Course-taking Patterns and Preparation for Postsecondary Education in California's Public University Systems Among Minority Youth*. Issues & Answers Report, REL 2008-No.035. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/west/pdf/REL_2008035.pdf (accessed April 3, 2008).

Goldrick-Rab, Sara. 2006. Following Their Every Move: An Investigation of Social-Class Differences in College Pathways. *Sociology of Education,* 79 (1): 61.

Heller, Donald E. 1997. Student Price Response in Higher Education: An Update to Leslie and Brinkman. *Journal of Higher Education,* 68 (6): 624​659.

———. 2004. The Devil Is in the Details: An Analysis of Eligibility Criteria for Merit Scholarships in Massachusetts. In *State Merit Scholarship Programs and Racial Inequality*, edited by D. E. Heller and P. Marin. Cambridge, Mass.: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

———. 2006. Merit Aid and College Access. Symposium on the Consequences of Merit-Based Student Aid, Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Heller, Donald E., and Christopher J. Rasmussen. 2002. Merit Scholarships and College Access: Evidence from Florida and Michigan. In *Who Should We Help? The Negative Social Consequences of Merit Scholarships*, edited by D. E. Heller and P. Marin. Cambridge, Mass.: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

Horn, Laura, and Stephanie Nevill. 2006. *Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Education Institutions: 2003–04: With a Special Analysis of Community College Students*. NCES 2006-184. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Horn, Laura, and Anne-Marie Nuñez. 2000. *Mapping the Road to College: First-Generation Students’ Math Track, Planning Strategies, and Context of Support*. NCES 2000-153. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Lederman, Doug. 2006. The Gift Colleges Don't Want. *Insider Higher Ed*http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/01/24/National SMART (accessed April 3, 2008).

McDonough, Patricia M. 2005, January. *Counseling and College Counseling in America’s High Schools*. White Paper. Alexandria, Va.: National Association of College Admission Counseling. http://inpathways.net/McDonough%20Report.pdf (accessed April 3, 2008).

O’Toole, Dennis M., Leslie S. Stratton, and James N. Wetzel. 2003. A Longitudinal Analysis of the Frequency of Part-Time Enrollment and the Persistence of Students Who Enrolled Part Time. *Research in Higher Education* 44, (5): 519–537.

Planty, Michael, Robert Bozick, and Steven J. Ingels. 2006. *Academic Pathways, Preparation, and Performance—A Descriptive Overview of the Transcripts From the High School Graduating Class of 2003–04*. NCES 2007-316. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Planty, Michael, William Hussar, Thomas Snyder, Stephen Provasnik, Grace Kena, Rachel Dinkes, Angelina KewalRamani, and Jana Kemp. 2008. *The Condition of Education 2008.* NCES 2008-031. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Shettle, Carolyn, Shep Roey, Joy Mordica, Robert Perkins, Christine Nord, Jelena Teodorovic, Marsha Lyons, Chris Averett, David Kastberg, and Janis Brown. 2007. *America’s High School Graduates: Results From the 2005 NAEP High School Transcript Study*. NCES 2007-467. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Tinto, Vincent. 1998. Colleges as Communities: Taking Research on Student Persistence Seriously. *The Review of Higher Education,* 21 (2): 167-177.

U.S. Department of Education. 2007. *Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council*. Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. 2007. *2006–07 Federal Pell Grant Program End-of-Year Report*. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Waits, Tiffany, J. Carl Setzer, and Laurie Lewis. 2005. *Dual Credit and Exam-Based Courses in U.S. Public High Schools: 2002–03*. NCES 2005-009. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

**Appendix A**

List of National SMART Grant-Eligible Majors

**National SMART Grant—Fields of Study (as of Aug. 25, 2006)**

The secretary has designated the following fields of study as eligible for the National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (National SMART) Grant Program to the extent that a student is enrolled in a bachelor’s degree or a graduate degree program that includes at least three academic years of undergraduate education.**

Computer science: The branch of knowledge or study of computers, including such fields of knowledge or study as computer hardware, computer software, computer engineering, information systems, and robotics. Associated NCES CIP CODES: 11.xxxx

Engineering: The science by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to humanity in structures, machines, and products, as in the construction of engines, bridges, buildings, mines, and chemical plants, including such fields of knowledge or study as aeronautical engineering, chemical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, industrial engineering, materials engineering, manufacturing engineering, and mechanical engineering. Associated NCES CIP CODES: 14.xxxx

Foreign Language: Instructional programs that focus on foreign languages and literatures, the humanistic and scientific study of linguistics, and the provision of professional interpretation and translation services. Associated NCES CIP CODES: 16.xxxx

Life sciences: The branch of knowledge or study of living things, including such fields of knowledge or study as biology, biochemistry, biophysics, microbiology, genetics, physiology, botany, zoology, ecology, and behavioral biology, except that the term does not encompass the health professions. Associated NCES CIP CODES: 26.xxxx; 01.xxxx

Mathematics: The branch of knowledge or study of numbers and the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically, including such fields of knowledge or study as statistics, applied mathematics, and operations research. Associated NCES CIP CODES: 27.xxxx

Physical sciences: The branch of knowledge or study of the material universe, including such fields of knowledge or study as astronomy, atmospheric sciences, chemistry, earth sciences, ocean sciences, physics, and planetary sciences. Associated NCES CIP CODES: 40.xxxx

Technology: The application of mechanical or scientific knowledge, for example, applied science. Related NCES CIP CODES: 41.xxxx; 29.xxxx 15.xxxx

Several Multidisciplinary Studies are also considered eligible for National SMART Grants.Associated NCES CIP CODES: 30.xxxx

**Computer Science**

11.01Computer and Information Sciences, General 

11.0101Computer and Information Sciences, General 

11.0102Artificial Intelligence and Robotics 

11.0103Information Technology 

11.0199Computer and Information Sciences, Other 

11.02Computer Programming 

11.0201Computer Programming/Programmer, General 

11.0202Computer Programming, Specific Applications 

11.0203Computer Programming, Vendor/Product Certification 

11.0299Computer Programming, Other 

11.03Data Processing 

11.0301Data Processing and Data Processing Technology/Technician 

11.04Information Science/Studies 

11.0401Information Science/Studies 

11.05Computer Systems Analysis 

11.0501Computer Systems Analysis/Analyst 

11.07Computer Science 

11.0701Computer Science 

11.08Computer Software and Media Applications 

11.0801Web Page, Digital/Multimedia and Information Resources Design 

11.0802Data Modeling/Warehousing and Database Administration 

11.0803Computer Graphics 

11.0899Computer Software and Media Applications, Other 

11.09Computer Systems Networking and Telecommunications 

11.0901Computer Systems Networking and Telecommunications 

11.10Computer/Information Technology Administration and Management 

11.1001System Administration/Administrator 

11.1002System, Networking, and LAN/WAN Management/Manager 

11.1003Computer and Information Systems Security 

11.1004Web/Multimedia Management and Webmaster 

11.1099Computer/Information Technology Services Administration and Management, Other 

11.99Computer and Information Sciences and Support Services, Other 

11.9999Computer and Information Sciences and Support Services, Other 

**Engineering**

14.01Engineering, General 

14.0101Engineering, General 

14.02Aerospace, Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering 

14.0201Aerospace, Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering 

14.03Agricultural/Biological Engineering and Bioengineering 

14.0301Agricultural/Biological Engineering and Bioengineering 

14.04Architectural Engineering 

14.0401Architectural Engineering 

14.05Biomedical/Medical Engineering 

14.0501Biomedical/Medical Engineering 

14.06Ceramic Sciences and Engineering 

14.0601Ceramic Sciences and Engineering 

14.07Chemical Engineering 

14.0701Chemical Engineering 

14.08Civil Engineering 

14.0801Civil Engineering, General 

14.0802Geotechnical Engineering 

14.0803Structural Engineering 

14.0804Transportation and Highway Engineering 

14.0805Water Resources Engineering 

14.0899Civil Engineering, Other 

14.09Computer Engineering, General 

14.0901Computer Engineering, General 

14.0902Computer Hardware Engineering 

14.0903Computer Software Engineering 

14.0999Computer Engineering, Other 

14.10Electrical, Electronics and Communications Engineering 

14.1001Electrical, Electronics and Communications Engineering 

14.11Engineering Mechanics 

14.1101Engineering Mechanics 

14.12Engineering Physics 

14.1201Engineering Physics 

14.13Engineering Science 

14.1301Engineering Science 

14.14Environmental/Environmental Health Engineering 

14.1401Environmental/Environmental Health Engineering 

14.18Materials Engineering 

14.1801Materials Engineering 

14.19Mechanical Engineering 

14.1901Mechanical Engineering 

14.20Metallurgical Engineering 

14.2001Metallurgical Engineering 

14.21Mining and Mineral Engineering 

14.2101Mining and Mineral Engineering 

14.22Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 

14.2201Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 

14.23Nuclear Engineering 

14.2301Nuclear Engineering 

14.24Ocean Engineering 

14.2401Ocean Engineering 

14.25Petroleum Engineering 

14.2501Petroleum Engineering 

14.27Systems Engineering 

14.2701Systems Engineering 

14.28Textile Sciences and Engineering 

14.2801Textile Sciences and Engineering 

14.31Materials Science 

14.3101Materials Science 

14.32Polymer/Plastics Engineering 

14.3201Polymer/Plastics Engineering 

14.33Construction Engineering 

14.3301Construction Engineering 

14.34Forest Engineering 

14.3401Forest Engineering 

14.35Industrial Engineering 

14.3501Industrial Engineering 

14.36Manufacturing Engineering 

14.3601Manufacturing Engineering 

14.37Operations Research 

14.3701Operations Research 

14.38Surveying Engineering 

14.3801Surveying Engineering 

14.39Geological/Geophysical Engineering 

14.3901Geological/Geophysical Engineering 

14.99Engineering, Other 

14.9999Engineering, Other 

**Critical Foreign Language**

16.0201African Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics 

16.0301Chinese Language and Literature 

16.0302Japanese Language and Literature 

16.0303Korean Language and Literature 

16.0402Russian Language and Literature 

16.0701Hindi Language and Literature 

16.0704Bengali Language and Literature 

16.0705Panjabi Language and Literature 

16.0707Urdu Language and Literature 

16.0801Iranian/Persian Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics 

16.0904Portuguese Language and Literature 

16.1101Arabic Language and Literature 

16.1102Hebrew Language and Literature 

16.1402Bahasa Indonesian/Bahasa Malay Languages and Literatures 

16.1404Filipino/Tagalog Language and Literature 

16.1501Turkish Language and Literature 

16.1599Turkic, Ural-Altaic, Caucasian, and Central Asian Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics, Other 

**Life Sciences**

**26.BIOLOGICAL AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES**

26.01Biology, General 

26.0101Biology/Biological Sciences, General 

26.0102Biomedical Sciences, General 

26.02Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology 

26.0202Biochemistry 

26.0203Biophysics 

26.0204Molecular Biology 

26.0205Molecular Biochemistry 

26.0206Molecular Biophysics 

26.0207Structural Biology 

26.0208Photobiology 

26.0209Radiation Biology/Radiobiology 

26.0210Biochemistry/Biophysics and Molecular Biology 

26.0299Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology, Other 

26.03Botany/Plant Biology 

26.0301Botany/Plant Biology 

26.0305Plant Pathology/Phytopathology 

26.0307Plant Physiology 

26.0308Plant Molecular Biology 

26.0399Botany/Plant Biology, Other 

26.04Cell/Cellular Biology and Anatomical Sciences 

26.0401Cell/Cellular Biology and Histology 

26.0403Anatomy 

26.0404Developmental Biology and Embryology 

26.0405Neuroanatomy 

26.0406Cell/Cellular and Molecular Biology 

26.0407Cell Biology and Anatomy 

26.0499Cell/Cellular Biology and Anatomical Sciences, Other 

26.05Microbiological Sciences and Immunology 

26.0502Microbiology, General 

26.0503Medical Microbiology and Bacteriology 

26.0504Virology 

26.0505Parasitology 

26.0506Mycology 

26.0507Immunology 

26.0599Microbiological Sciences and Immunology, Other 

26.07Zoology/Animal Biology 

26.0701Zoology/Animal Biology 

26.0702Entomology 

26.0707Animal Physiology 

26.0708Animal Behavior and Ethology 

26.0709Wildlife Biology 

26.0799Zoology/Animal Biology, Other 

26.08Genetics 

26.0801Genetics, General 

26.0802Molecular Genetics 

26.0803Microbial and Eukaryotic Genetics 

26.0804Animal Genetics 

26.0805Plant Genetics 

26.0806Human/Medical Genetics 

26.0899Genetics, Other 

26.09Physiology, Pathology and Related Sciences 

26.0901Physiology, General 

26.0902Molecular Physiology 

26.0903Cell Physiology 

26.0904Endocrinology 

26.0905Reproductive Biology 

26.0906Neurobiology and Neurophysiology 

26.0907Cardiovascular Science 

***26.0908Exercise Physiology 8/25/2006***

26.0909Vision Science/Physiological Optics 

26.0910Pathology/Experimental Pathology 

26.0911Oncology and Cancer Biology 

26.0999Physiology, Pathology, and Related Sciences, Other 

26.10Pharmacology and Toxicology 

26.1001Pharmacology 

26.1002Molecular Pharmacology 

26.1003Neuropharmacology 

26.1004Toxicology 

26.1005Molecular Toxicology 

26.1006Environmental Toxicology 

26.1007Pharmacology and Toxicology 

26.1099Pharmacology and Toxicology, Other 

26.11Biomathematics and Bioinformatics 

26.1101Biometry/Biometrics 

26.1102Biostatistics 

26.1103Bioinformatics 

26.1199Biomathematics and Bioinformatics, Other 

26.12Biotechnology 

26.1201Biotechnology 

26.13Ecology, Evolution, Systematics and Population Biology 

26.1301Ecology 

26.1302Marine Biology and Biological Oceanography 

***26.1303Evolutionary Biology 8/25/2006***

26.1304Aquatic Biology/Limnology 

26.1305Environmental Biology 

26.1306Population Biology 

26.1307Conservation Biology 

26.1308Systematic Biology/Biological Systematics 

26.1309Epidemiology 

26.1399Ecology, Evolution, Systematics and Population Biology, Other 

26.99Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Other 

26.9999Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Other 

**01.AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS, AND RELATED SCIENCES**

01.09Animal Sciences 

01.0901Animal Sciences, General

01.0902Agricultural Animal Breeding

01.0903Animal Health

01.0904Animal Nutrition

01.0905Dairy Science

01.0906Livestock Management

01.0907Poultry Science

01.0999Animal Sciences, Other

01.11Plant Sciences

01.1101Plant Sciences, General

01.1102Agronomy and Crop Science

01.1103Horticultural Science

01.1104Agricultural and Horticultural Plant Breeding

01.1105Plant Protection and Integrated Pest Management

01.1106Range Science and Management

01.1199Plant Sciences, Other

01.12Soil Sciences

01.1201Soil Scienceand Agronomy, General

01.1202Soil Chemistry and Physics

01.1203Soil Microbiology

01.1299Soil Sciences, Other

**Mathematics**

27.01Mathematics 

27.0101Mathematics, General 

27.0102Algebra and Number Theory 

27.0103Analysis and Functional Analysis 

27.0104Geometry/Geometric Analysis 

27.0105Topology and Foundations 

27.0199Mathematics, Other 

27.03Applied Mathematics 

27.0301Applied Mathematics 

27.0303Computational Mathematics 

27.0399Applied Mathematics, Other 

27.05Statistics 

27.0501Statistics, General 

27.0502Mathematical Statistics and Probability 

27.0599Statistics, Other 

27.99Mathematics and Statistics, Other 

27.9999Mathematics and Statistics, Other 

**Physical Sciences**

40.01Physical Sciences 

40.0101Physical Sciences 

40.02Astronomy and Astrophysics 

40.0201Astronomy 

40.0202Astrophysics 

40.0203Planetary Astronomy and Science 

40.0299Astronomy and Astrophysics, Other 

40.04Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology 

40.0401Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology, General 

40.0402Atmospheric Chemistry and Climatology 

40.0403Atmospheric Physics and Dynamics 

40.0404Meteorology 

40.0499Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology, Other 

40.05Chemistry 

40.0501Chemistry, General 

40.0502Analytical Chemistry 

40.0503Inorganic Chemistry 

40.0504Organic Chemistry 

40.0506Physical and Theoretical Chemistry 

40.0507Polymer Chemistry 

40.0508Chemical Physics 

40.0599Chemistry, Other 

40.06Geological and Earth Sciences/Geosciences 

40.0601Geology/Earth Science, General 

40.0602Geochemistry 

40.0603Geophysics and Seismology 

40.0604Paleontology 

40.0605Hydrology and Water Resources Science 

40.0606Geochemistry and Petrology 

40.0607Oceanography, Chemical and Physical 

40.0699Geological and Earth Sciences/Geosciences, Other 

40.08Physics 

40.0801Physics, General 

40.0802Atomic/Molecular Physics 

40.0804Elementary Particle Physics 

40.0805Plasma and High-Temperature Physics 

40.0806Nuclear Physics 

40.0807Optics/Optical Sciences 

40.0808Solid State and Low-Temperature Physics 

40.0809Acoustics 

40.0810Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 

40.0899Physics, Other 

40.99Physical Sciences, Other 

40.9999Physical Sciences, Other 

**Technology**

**15.ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES/TECHNICIANS**

15.00Engineering Technology, General 

15.0000Engineering Technology, General 

15.01Architectural Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.0101Architectural Engineering Technology/Technician 

15.02Civil Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.0201Civil Engineering Technology/Technician 

15.03Electrical Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.0303Electrical, Electronic and Communications Engineering Technology/Technician 

15.0304Laser and Optical Technology/Technician 

15.0305Telecommunications Technology/Technician 

15.0399Electrical and Electronic Engineering Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.04Electromechanical Instrumentation and Maintenance Technologies/Technicians 

15.0401Biomedical Technology/Technician 

15.0403Electromechanical Technology/ Electromechanical Engineering Technology 

15.0404Instrumentation Technology/Technician 

15.0405Robotics Technology/Technician 

15.0499Electromechanical and Instrumentation and Maintenance Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.05Environmental Control Technologies/Technicians 

15.0503Energy Management and Systems Technology/Technician 

15.0505Solar Energy Technology/Technician 

15.0506Water Quality and Wastewater Treatment Management and Recycling Technology/Technician 

15.0507Environmental Engineering Technology/ Environmental Technology 

15.0508Hazardous Materials Management and Waste Technology/Technician 

15.0599Environmental Control Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.06Industrial Production Technologies/Technicians 

15.0607Plastics Engineering Technology/Technician 

15.0611Metallurgical Technology/Technician 

15.0612Industrial Technology/Technician 

15.0613Manufacturing Technology/Technician 

15.0699Industrial Production Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.07Quality Control and Safety Technologies/Technicians 

15.0701Occupational Safety and Health Technology/Technician 

15.0702Quality Control Technology/Technician 

15.0703Industrial Safety Technology/Technician 

15.0704Hazardous Materials Information Systems Technology/Technician 

15.0799Quality Control and Safety Technologies/ Technicians, Other 

15.08Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/Technicians 

15.0801Aeronautical/Aerospace Engineering Technology/Technician 

15.0803Automotive Engineering Technology/Technician 

15.0805Mechanical Engineering/Mechanical Technology/Technician 

15.0899Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.09Mining and Petroleum Technologies/Technicians 

15.0901Mining Technology/Technician 

15.0903Petroleum Technology/Technician 

15.0999Mining and Petroleum Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.10Construction Engineering Technologies 

15.1001Construction Engineering Technology/ Technician 

15.11Engineering-Related Technologies 

15.1102Surveying Technology/Surveying 

15.1103Hydraulics and Fluid Power Technology/ Technician 

15.1199Engineering-Related Technologies, Other 

15.12Computer Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.1201Computer Engineering Technology/ Technician 

15.1202Computer Technology/Computer Systems Technology 

15.1203Computer Hardware Technology/Technician 

15.1204Computer Software Technology/Technician 

15.1299Computer Engineering Technologies/ Technicians, Other 

15.13Drafting/Design Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.1301Drafting and Design Technology/Technician, General 

15.1302CAD/CADD Drafting and/or Design Technology/Technician 

15.1303Architectural Drafting and Architectural CAD/CADD 

15.1304Civil Drafting and Civil Engineering CAD/CADD 

15.1305Electrical/Electronics Drafting and Electrical/Electronics CAD/CADD 

15.1306Mechanical Drafting and Mechanical Drafting CAD/CADD 

15.1399Drafting/Design Engineering Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.14Nuclear Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.1401Nuclear Engineering Technology/Technician 

15.15Engineering-Related Fields 

15.1501Engineering/Industrial Management 

15.99Engineering Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.9999Engineering Technologies/Technicians, Other 

**29.MILITARY TECHNOLOGIES**

29.01Military Technologies 

29.0101Military Technologies 

**41.SCIENCE TECHNOLOGIES/TECHNICIANS**

41.01Biology Technician/Biotechnology Laboratory Technician 

41.0101Biology Technician/Biotechnology Laboratory Technician 

41.02Nuclear and Industrial Radiologic Technologies/Technicians 

41.0204Industrial Radiologic Technology/Technician 

41.0205Nuclear/Nuclear Power Technology/Technician 

41.0299Nuclear and Industrial Radiologic Technologies/Technicians, Other 

41.03Physical Science Technologies/Technicians 

41.0301Chemical Technology/Technician 

41.0399Physical Science Technologies/Technicians, Other 

41.99Science Technologies/Technicians, Other 

41.9999Science Technologies/Technicians, Other 

**Multidisciplinary Studies**

**30.MULTI/INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES**

30.01Biological and Physical Sciences 

30.0101Biological and Physical Sciences 

30.06Systems Science and Theory 

30.0601Systems Science and Theory 

30.08Mathematics and Computer Science 

30.0801Mathematics and Computer Science 

30.1501Science, Technology and Society 

30.16Accounting and Computer Science 

30.1601Accounting and Computer Science 

30.18Natural Sciences 

30.1801Natural Sciences 

30.24Neuroscience 

30.2401Neuroscience 

30.25Cognitive Science 

30.2501Cognitive Science

**Appendix B**

History of the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs

**Appendix C**

*High Schools That Work* Award of Educational Achievement

To earn this award, students must complete the curriculum recommended by *High Schools That Work (HSTW)* initiative in at least two of the three subject areas (English, mathematics, and science); complete a concentration in a career and technical field, mathematics and science, or the humanities; and meet all three of the performance goals on the HSTW assessment. 

The recommended curriculum consists of: 

English: four credits in college-preparatory level courses. 

Mathematics: four credits in college-preparatory level courses, including algebra I, geometry, algebra II and a higher level mathematics course such as trigonometry, statistics, pre-calculus, calculus, or Advanced Placement mathematics. 

Science: three or more credits in science, including at least two credits in college-preparatory biology, chemistry, anatomy and physiology or physics and applied physics. 

The concentrations consist of:

Career and Technical: four or more credits in a coherent sequence in a career and technical field or major. 

Mathematics and Science: four college-preparatory courses each in mathematics and science. At least one higher level course in either mathematics or science must be at the Advanced Placement level. 

Humanities: four college-preparatory courses each in English or language arts and social studies and four courses in an area of the humanities, such as foreign language, fine arts or additional English and social studies courses. At least one course in either English or social studies must be at the Advanced Placement level. 

Performance Goals: 

The performance goals on the HSTW assessment are a 279 in reading, a 297 in mathematics, and a 299 in science on a scale of 0–500.

**Appendix D**

National Data Sources

**Survey Data**

The data sources used for the analyses of national data are described briefly here. Additional details, such as sample size, sample design, and survey methodology, are available for each of these sources on the NCES Web site (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/). 

The *National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) High School Transcript Studies (HSTS)* periodically collects information on courses, credits, and grades that high school graduates earned in high school. This analysis uses data from 1990, 2000, and 2005 studies.

The *Educational Longitudinal Study (ELS)*is a longitudinal study of high school students who were in 10th grade in 2002. These students were followed up in 2004 (when most graduated from high school) and again in 2006. High school transcripts were collected in 2004. 

For both NAEP and ELS, the analysis sample for this study includes high school graduates who received a regular, regents, or honors diploma and had a complete transcript (defined as one that records at least 16 credits and at least 1 credit in English). These selection criteria are intended to exclude implausible transcripts because having fewer than 16 credits and having zero English credits has been shown to indicate that the transcript is faulty. About 99 percent of high school graduates had full transcripts available for the analysis.

The *National Postsecondary Student Aid Studies (NPSAS)* are nationally representative, cross-sectional studies of students enrolled in postsecondary education, regardless of age or level. These studies have been conducted every three to four years since 1990, most recently in 2003–04. 

The *Beginning Postsecondary Student Longitudinal Studies (BPS:96/01 and BPS:04/06)*follow**cohorts of students who enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time in 1995–96 or 2003–04. The first cohort (1995–96) was followed up in 1998 and 2001, and the second cohort (2003–04) in 2006. The students in these studies are drawn from NPSAS and the base-year NPSAS data.

The *Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)* collects data every year from all primary providers of postsecondary education in the country on topics such as enrollments, program completions, graduation rates, faculty, staff, finances, institutional prices, and student financial aid. 

**ACG and National SMART Grant Data**

The Office of Federal Student Aid provided MPR Associates with a file of student-level records of all Pell Grant recipients (merged with information from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid application [FAFSA] data), ACGs, and National SMART Grants awarded for the 2006–07 academic year. There were approximately 5 million students in the file who had received a Pell Grant at one of the institutions eligible to participate in the ACG or the National SMART Grant programs. The Pell Grant records (with the FAFSA data) were then merged with the records for ACG and National SMART Grant recipients. The final analysis file identified those who received an ACG, a National SMART Grant, or only a Pell Grant. Only those records that indicated that the award had been disbursed to the student (as of the September 2007 date of the file) were included. Subsequent updates to the file (either adding disbursements or subtracting cancellations) may have changed the totals compared with those reported elsewhere. 

Although all ACGs and National SMART Grants are only awarded to students with Pell Grants, about 400 ACG or National SMART Grant records could not be matched to a Pell Grant record in this file. In addition, some of the student-reported fields from the FAFSA were missing, so the student totals may vary slightly for some variables reported on different tables. There were about 2,000 ACG or National SMART Grant recipients who transferred during the academic year and received these grants at two different colleges; the tables that show the number of students by type or state of institution include these as duplicates, and will therefore have slightly higher totals than the tables based on unduplicated, unique student records. About 1,600 students received an ACG in the first term (as a second-year student) and a National SMART Grant in the second term (as a third-year student). They are shown in both the ACG and the National SMART Grant totals.

**appendix E**

Supplemental Tables on ACG and National SMART Grant Program Participation by Institution Type in 2006–07

**Appendix F**

Supplemental Tables on High School Course Work

**Appendix G**

Supplemental Tables on ACG and National SMART Grant Program Participation by State in 2006–07

� On a 4.0 scale or the numeric equivalent.

� Appendix A includes a complete list of eligible majors.

� Chapter 6 of this report contains the Department’s specific recommendations.

� Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 127, p. 37998.

� Rigorous programs are described in Chapter 3.

� On a 4.0 scale or the numeric equivalent.

� Appendix A includes a complete list of eligible majors.

� Policy Letter signed by the Secretary Margaret Spellings, May 2, 2006: �HYPERLINK "http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/guid/secletter/060502.html"�http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/guid/secletter/060502.html� (accessed Jan. 22, 2008).

� Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 127, p. 37998.

� U.S. Department of Education: � HYPERLINK "http://www.ed.gov/programs/smart/performance.html" �http://www.ed.gov/programs/smart/performance.html� (accessed Aug. 25, 2008).

� A recent analysis of high school transcripts in California indicates that students who do not start preparing for college in ninth grade have a difficult time catching up (Finkelstein and Fong 2008).

� These data will be available in 2009.

� “Negotiated rulemaking” (Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 561–570) is a process in which different interest groups come together to negotiate the terms of an administrative rule and propose changes. It is entirely voluntary and the agency does not have to adopt the changes suggested by the advisory committee. The Department held four regional sessions in fall 2006 that helped create the agenda for the three ACG and National SMART Grant negotiated-rulemaking sessions that took place in spring 2007. Comments on the negotiated-rulemaking process and the subsequent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking can be found at �HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp"�http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp�.

� The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) was invited to participate in an interview for this study but declined.

� Jerome H. Sullivan, executive director of AACRAO, and Joyce E. Smith, executive director of NACADA, to Fred Sellers, U.S. Department of Education, Aug. 17, 2006. 

� Inside Higher Ed, “Are Students Getting National SMART?”, Dec. 14, 2006. Available at: �HYPERLINK "http://insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2006/12/14/smart"�http://insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2006/12/14/National SMART�.

� Phyllis Hooyman, director of financial aid at Hope College to Sophia McArdle, U.S. Department of Education via the Federal eRulemaking portal, Sept. 5, 2007, in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Available at: �HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648027e67d"�http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648027e67d�.

� Inside Higher Ed, “Education Department Accused of Misreading Law,” Aug. 1, 2006. Available at: �HYPERLINK "http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/01/grants"�http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/01/grants�. 

� California Educational Opportunity Report 2007. UCLA Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access 

University of California All Campus Consortium on Research for Diversity. Available at: www.idea.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/eor07/state/pdf/StateEOR2007.pdfk.

� The 4th Annual AP Report to the Nation. 2007. The College Board. Available at: http://www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/194817.html.

� Critical Path Analysis of California’s Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation System. 2007. California Council on Science and Technology and The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. Available at: http://www.ccst.us/publications/2007/2007TCPA.php.

� State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume II: Teacher Quality Under NCLB: Interim Report. 2007. U.S. Department of Education. Available at: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/nclb/execsum.html.

� Inside Higher Ed, “Grants Given, and Taken Away,” Aug. 25, 2006. Available at: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/25/smart.

� Jean Gasparato, compliance and systems implementation manager at the University of South Carolina, Columbia campus to Gail McLarnon, U.S. Department of Education via the Federal eRulemaking portal, Sept. 5, 2007, in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Available at: �HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648027e1d0"�http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648027e1d0�.

� Reba A. Raffaelli, senior vice president of Advocacy and General Counsel at the Career College Association to Sophia McArdle, U.S. Department of Education via the Federal eRulemaking Portal, Sept. 4, 2007, in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Available at: �HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648027dc8d"�http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648027dc8d�.

� Dallas Martin, president of NASFAA, to Fred Sellers, U.S. Department of Education, Aug. 10, 2006.

� David Ward, president of ACE, to Fred Sellers, U.S. Department of Education, Aug. 16, 2006.

� George R. Boggs, president and CEO of AACC, to Fred Sellers, U.S. Department of Education, Aug. 17, 2006.

� Ellen Neel, president of Glendale Community College to the U.S. Department of Education via the Federal eRulemaking Portal, Sept. 6, 2007, in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Available at: �HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648027e8b4"�http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648027e8b4�.

� June Schlabach, director of the Financial Aid Team at Plymouth State University to the U.S. Department of Education via the Federal eRulemaking Portal, Sept. 4, 2007, in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Available at: �HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648027be3c"�http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648027be3c�.

� Final regulations (FR Doc E6-18197), Nov. 1, 2006. Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 211.

� A description of the requirements in each state is available at: � HYPERLINK "http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/about/ac-smart/state-programs.html" �http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/about/ac-smart/state-programs.html�.

� More information on this initiative and a current list of participating states is available at: �HYPERLINK "http://www.wiche.edu/statescholars/"�http://www.wiche.edu/statescholars/�.

� Available at: �HYPERLINK "http://www.collegeboard.com"�http://www.collegeboard.com�.

� The requirements for this award are described in Appendix C.

� These included, for example, passing a state or local assessment test, achieving a minimum GPA or score on a PSAT, SAT, or ACT test, completing AP or IB courses or exams or dual-enrollment courses, or completing a senior project.

� The ED course-based curriculum is used as the standard for comparison rather than the SSI curriculum because it is less demanding and is available to students in all states. The table indicates which states are using the HSTW Award of Educational Achievement to qualify students, but the HSTW-recommended curriculum is not compared with the ED course-based curriculum. The way the requirements are structured—with alternative ways of qualifying and no required courses—makes it difficult to compare the program required for this award with other curriculum-based programs.

� This information was obtained from a database maintained by the Education Commission of the States (ECS) and is available at: http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=735. The ECS gathered the baseline information in 2005 and updates it as new policies are enacted. These data reflect the requirements based on the August 2006 update, just before the first ACGs were awarded.

� The maximum Pell Grant is set legislatively but depends on federal appropriations for the program. In 2006–07, it was $4,050, the level it had been since 2003–04 (U.S. Department of Education 2007). Not all students eligible for Pell Grants receive them. Some do not apply for them and others do not follow through on steps such as income verification. In addition to losing the opportunity for a Pell Grant, these students may also be foregoing an ACG or National SMART Grant. 

� The federal Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is a measure of a family’s financial strength and indicates how much of a student’s and family’s financial resources (for dependent students) should be available to help pay for their education. It is used as an index number.

� The federal Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is a measure of a family’s financial strength and indicates how much of a student’s and family’s financial resources (for dependent students) should be available to help pay for their education. It is used as an index number.

� These recipients were coded as meeting Department of Defense (DoD) criteria. While some students may have qualified in this way, the number reported in this category (5,400) exceeds the number of high school seniors enrolled in DoD schools in 2006 (3,300) (�HYPERLINK "http://www.dodea.edu/datacenter/enrollment_display.cfm"�http://www.dodea.edu/datacenter/enrollment_display.cfm�). This suggests some coding errors.

� They may have attended boarding schools in another state, for example.

� Full-time independent students tend to have lower incomes than their dependent counterparts in part because they are enrolled full-time. Among full-time students in 2003–04, 85 percent of independent students had incomes of less than $50,000, while 39 percent of dependent students came from families with incomes less than $50,000 (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study [NPSAS:04], Data Analysis System).

� The 2007–08 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), based on a nationally representative sample of all postsecondary students, will include questions on knowledge of and participation in the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. These data will be available in 2009.

� While NAEP routinely collects information on school lunch eligibility and uses it as an indicator of poverty for elementary school children, it does not normally report this information for 12th-graders. High school students participate in the school lunch program at a much lower rate than students in elementary school, leading to an unknown poverty status for a large number of students.

� U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Studies, 2000 and 2005. Not shown in table.

� The reports (Planty, Bozick, and Ingels 2006; Shettle et al. 2007) show differences in average total credits, average mathematics credits, average science credits, average social studies credits, and average foreign language credits, with the results from HSTS always being a bit higher. There was no difference in average English credits. The reports define mathematics course-taking differently, making it impossible to compare levels of mathematics course-taking. 

� No nationally representative data exist on course offerings, but the percentage of schools offering AP courses varies with school size, urbanicity, and region (Waits, Setzer, Lewis, and Greene 2005).

� The amount of $50,000 was chosen as the upper limit to identify low-income graduates because families with incomes above $50,000 are typically not eligible for Pell Grants.

� U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), “High School Transcript Study, 2004.” Not shown in table.

� Follow-ups of the first cohort took place in 1998 and 2001 and of the second cohort in 2006; the 2003–04 cohort will be followed up again in 2009.

� Also biasing the estimates upward may be the fact that not all students took the ACT or SAT, and those did are probably more likely than those who did not take them to have completed a rigorous high school program.

� U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), “High School Transcript Study, 2004.” Not shown in table.

� The list of eligible fields is based on Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) codes, which is not how NPSAS majors were coded. However, the eligible CIP codes can be approximated from the NPSAS codes (see Appendix D for details on how this was done).

� U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000). Not shown in table.

� The complete document is available at: � HYPERLINK "http://www.ed.gov/programs/smart/results2007/national.pdf" �http://www.ed.gov/programs/smart/results2007/national.pdf�.

� This list was expanded for 2007–08 to include Natural Resources and Conservation (NCES CIP CODES 03.xxxx) and Psychology (NCES CIP CODES 42.xxxx). No additions were made for 2008–09.