Academic Competitiveness and 

SMART Grant Programs:

First-Year Lessons Learned

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
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. 
 iii 

Contents 

Page 

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... v

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... ix

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................... xiii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ xv 

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

Background ............................................................................................................................ 1 

Implementation ...................................................................................................................... 2 

Expected Program Outcomes ................................................................................................. 3 

Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................................. 5 

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 Legislation ................. 8 

Complex Requirements and Rapid Implementation .............................................................. 10 

Stakeholders’ Perspectives ..................................................................................................... 11 

Development and Resolution of Salient Concerns ................................................................ 14 

Eligibility Requirements for ACG and National SMART Grant Programs .......................... 15 

Requirements Common to ACGs and National SMART Grants .......................................... 17 

Additional ACG and National SMART Grant Requirements ............................................... 18 

Regulatory Concerns .............................................................................................................. 23 

Ongoing Concerns ................................................................................................................. 27 

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 29 

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

U.S. Department of Education Definitions of a Rigorous High School Program ................. 31 

Approved State Programs ...................................................................................................... 33 

State High School Graduation Requirements ........................................................................ 42 

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 45 

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

ACG Program ........................................................................................................................ 47 

National SMART Grant Program .......................................................................................... 64 
CONTENTS

— iv — 

Page 

Chapter 5. Baseline Information .............................................................................................. 79 

Trends in High School Course-taking.................................................................................... 79 

Estimates of Eligibility for ACGs and National SMART Grants .......................................... 85 

Trends in Degrees Awarded in National SMART Grant Majors .......................................... 94 

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 97 

Chapter 6. Summary of U.S. Department of Education and Stakeholder 

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 99

U.S. Department of Education ............................................................................................... 99 

Stakeholders ...........................................................................................................................101 

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 
— v —

Figures 

Figure Page 

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

Grants .............................................................................................................................. 4 

2 Number of states with one to five or more ways to meet the rigorous curriculum 

requirement for the ACG: 2006–07 ................................................................................. 33 

3 Among 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: 2006 ............................................................ 42 

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

diploma in 2006 ............................................................................................................... 45 

5 Percentage of eligible institutions awarding ACGs, by type of institution: 2006–07 ..... 48 

6 Percentage of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients who also received an ACG, 

by type of institution attended: 2006–07 ......................................................................... 49 

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

2006–07............................................................................................................................ 50 

8 Percentage distribution of institutions participating in the ACG program by the 

number of ACGs awarded: 2006–07 ............................................................................... 51 

9 Percentage distribution of ACG recipients by class level: 2006–07................................ 52 

10 Percentage distributions of ACG recipients and students who received only Pell 

Grants at ACG-participating institutions by gender and age: 2006–07 ........................... 53 

11 Percentage distribution of dependent ACG recipients and dependent students who 

received only Pell Grants at ACG-participating institutions by parents’ income: 

2006–07............................................................................................................................ 54 

12 Of 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): 2006–07 .............................................................................. 55 
LIST OF FIGURES

— vi — 

Figure Page 

13 Average grant amounts awarded to dependent first- and second-year students with 

ACGs, by Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–07 ............................................. 56 

14 Percentage distribution of Pell Grant and ACG dollars for dependent first- and 

second-year students by Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–07 ...................... 57 

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

2006–07............................................................................................................................ 58 

16 Percentage of eligible institutions participating in the SMART Grant program, by 

type of institution: 2006–07 ............................................................................................. 64 

17 Percentage of Pell Grant recipients who also received SMART Grants by class level, 

by type of participating institution: 2006–07 ................................................................... 65 

18 Percentage distribution of third- and fourth-year SMART Grant recipients by amount 

received: 2006–07 ............................................................................................................ 66 

19 Percentage distribution of institutions participating in the SMART Grant Program by 

the number of SMART Grant recipients: 2006–07.......................................................... 67 

20 Percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by class level: 2006–07 ................ 68 

21 Of 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: 2006–07 ................................................................................................. 68 

22 Of 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: 2006–07 ....................................................................... 69 

23 Of 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): 2006–07 ............................... 71 

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

2006–07............................................................................................................................ 72 

25 Percentage distribution of Pell Grant and SMART Grant dollars for dependent thirdand fourth-year students, by Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–07 ................ 73 

26 Percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by field of study: 2006–07 ........... 74 

27 Number of SMART Grants, by field of study: 2006–07 ................................................. 74 
LIST OF FIGURES

— vii — 

Figure Page 

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

2006–07............................................................................................................................ 75 

29 Percentage of all high school graduates completing a rigorous high school program in 

various subject areas: 1990, 2000, and 2005 ................................................................... 81 

30 Percentage of high school graduates completing the ED course-based curriculum, by 

family income: 2004 ........................................................................................................ 82 

31 Among 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 income .............................................................................................. 84 

32 Among first-year students in degree programs who were recent high school graduates, 

percentage who would have met ACG requirements: 1995–96 and 2003–04 ................. 88 

33 Of recent high school graduates enrolled in degree programs, percentage with 

selected student and institutional characteristics: 2003–04 ............................................. 91 

34 Percentage of third-year and above undergraduates meeting SMART Grant Eligibility 

requirements: 1999–2000 and 2003–04 ........................................................................... 93 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
— ix —

Tables 

Table Page 

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

in interpreting the regulations .......................................................................................... 9 

2 Stakeholder organizations relevant to the ACG and National SMART Grant 

programs .......................................................................................................................... 12 

3 Development and resolution of salient concerns ............................................................. 14 

4 Detail on rigorous high school programs approved by the U.S. Department of 

Education, by state: 2006–07 ........................................................................................... 34 

5 Summary of options for qualifying for an ACG and comparison of approved state 

programs to ED course-based curriculum, by state: 2006–07 ......................................... 39 

6 Graduation requirements for a standard high school diploma, by state: 2006................. 43 

7 Number 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 

8 Number 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: 2006–07 .............................................................................. 61 

9 Number 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: 2006–07 .............................................................................. 77 

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

2003–04............................................................................................................................ 87 

11 Number 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: 2003–04 .............................................................................. 89 
LIST OF TABLES

— x — 

Table Page 

12 Number 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: 

2003–04............................................................................................................................ 92 

13 Number and percentage of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in SMART Grant-eligible 

majors: 1995–96, 2000–01, and 2005–06 ........................................................................ 94 

14 Number and percentage of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in SMART Grant-eligible 

majors and percentage distribution by state: 1995–96, 2000–01, and 2005–06 .............. 95 

15 Number 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 

2005–06............................................................................................................................ 96 

E-1 Participation of eligible institutions in ACG and SMART Grant programs: 2006–07....134 

E-2 Number and percentage of Pell Grant students receiving ACGs or SMART Grants at 

participating colleges: 2006–07 .......................................................................................135 

E-3 Average number of Pell Grants, ACGs, or SMART Grants at participating 

institutions: 2006–07 ........................................................................................................136 

E-4 Number and percentage distribution of colleges participating in ACG or SMART 

Grant programs by the number of grant recipients: 2006–07 ..........................................137 

E-5 Number 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: 2006–07 ................................................................................................139 

E-6 Number 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: 2006–07................................................................................................141 

E-7 Number 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: 2006–07 ................................................................142 

E-8 Number 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: 2006–07 ........................143 
LIST OF TABLES

— xi — 

Table Page 

E-9 Number 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: 

2006–07............................................................................................................................144 

E-10 Number 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: 

2006–07............................................................................................................................145 

E-11 Average 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: 2006–07 ......................146 

E-12 Number 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: 2006–07 .......................................................................................147 

E-13 Number and percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by field of study and 

type of institution attended: 2006–07 ..............................................................................148 

F-1 Percentage 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: 2004 .......................................150 

F-2 Percentage 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: 2004 ........................................................................................................................152 

G-1 Number 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-2 Number 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 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
— xiii —

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. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
— xv —

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 3.01

 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 interest2 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. 

 

1

 On a 4.0 scale or the numeric equivalent. 

2

 Appendix A includes a complete list of eligible majors. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

— xvi — 

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.3

 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.4 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. 

 

3

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

4 Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 127, p. 37998. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

— xvii — 

• 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 coursetaking 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. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

— xviii — 

• 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 parttime 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 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

— xix — 

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 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

— xx — 

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 Granteligible 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. 
— 1 —

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)5

 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 3.06 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 3.0.7 

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 

 

5

 Rigorous programs are described in Chapter 3. 

6

 On a 4.0 scale or the numeric equivalent. 

7

 Appendix A includes a complete list of eligible majors. 
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

— 2 — 

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.8 

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.9 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-

 

8

 Policy Letter signed by the Secretary Margaret Spellings, May 2, 2006: 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/guid/secletter/060502.html (accessed Jan. 22, 2008). 

9 Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 127, p. 37998. 
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

— 3 — 

income students, and increased postsecondary attainment will help the United States compete in 

the 21st century.10

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.11 In addition, students about to enter their third and fourth years of 

 

10 U.S. Department of Education: http://www.ed.gov/programs/smart/performance.html (accessed Aug. 25, 2008). 11 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). 
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

— 4 — 

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. 

Figure 1.—Hypothetical cohort progression and timing of eligibility for ACGs or SMART Grants 

College

Entered

high school Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Freshman

in 2006–07

Entered college in

2006–07 with math/ Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

science major or interest

Took lab science classes

starting 11th grade Junior Senior Freshman Sophomore Junior

in 2006–07

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Eligible for ACG Eligible for SMART Grant

High school

College

High school College
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

— 5 — 

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 higherincome 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). 
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

— 6 — 

• 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 coursetaking 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.12 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. 

 

12 These data will be available in 2009. 
— 7 —

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. 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 8 — 

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 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 9 — 

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 

Date Provisions 

Feb. 1, 2006 Congress passes the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 

2005 as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. 

Feb. 8, 2006 President Bush signs Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 

2005 into law. 

April 5, 2006 The U.S. Department of Education explains the process for 

administering grants to institutions of higher education 

through a letter posted on the Department’s Web site. 

May 2, 2006 The U.S. Department of Education announces guidelines on 

how students become eligible—having successfully 

completed a rigorous high school program of study and 

specific majors. 

June 1, 2006 Deadline for states to establish and submit to the secretary of 

education an alternate rigorous high school program of study 

for recognition in the 2006–07 academic year. 

July 3, 2006 

Effective 2006–07 academic year 

Interim Final Regulations are posted in the Federal

Register—addressing mandatory participation, definition of 

“academic year,” and definition of GPA. 

July 3–Aug. 17, 2006 Comment period on Interim Final Regulations. 

Oct. 20, 2006 “Dear Colleague” letter on academic year. 

Nov. 1, 2006 Deadline for states to establish and submit to the secretary of 

education additional rigorous high school programs of study 

for recognition in the 2007–08 academic year. 

Nov. 1, 2006 

Effective 2007–08 academic year 

Final Regulations published, in response to comments. 

February–April 2007 Negotiated rulemaking sessions. 

Cont’d. next page. 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 10 — 

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

interpreting the regulations—Continued 

Oct. 29, 2007 

Effective July 1, 2008—but could be implemented on or after 

Nov. 1, 2007 

Final Regulations published, as amended by the secretary. 

May 7, 2008 

Effective Jan. 1, 2009 

H.R. 5715 passed by House and Senate; signed into law by 

President Bush. 

Aug. 14, 2008 H.R. 4137: The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 

(HEOA) enacted and reauthorized the Higher Education Act 

of 1965 (HEA). 

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 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 11 — 

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 200713 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). 

 

13 “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 http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp. 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 12 — 

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

Organization Stakeholder Role

Postsecondary Institutions

American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions 

Officers 

Represents administrators at postsecondary institutions

American Association of Community Colleges Represents public two-year institutions 

American Association of State Colleges and Universities Represents some state postsecondary institutions

American Association of University Professors Represents professors at some universities 

American Conference of Academic Deans Represents deans at all postsecondary institutions

American Council on Education Represents U.S. higher education institutions 

Association of American Universities Includes 60 American universities 

Association of Community College Trustees Represents community college trustees 

Career College Association Represents proprietary postsecondary institutions

National Academic Advising Association Includes all postsecondary institutions 

National Association of College and University Business Officers Represents business officers at all postsecondary 

institutions 

National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities Represents some independent institutions 

National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs Represents state agencies responsible for state-funded 

student aid programs 

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant 

Colleges Represents state universities and land-grant colleges 

National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Includes all postsecondary institutions 

The Council for Opportunity in Education and The Pell Institute Represents TRIO programs and some Educational 

Opportunity Programs 

United States Student Association Represents students

Elementary and High Schools

American School Counselor Association Includes elementary, middle and high school, and college 

counselors 

National Association for College Admission Counseling Represents high school and college counselors 

National Association of Secondary School Principals Includes middle and high school principals 

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Represents elementary and high school mathematics 

teachers 

National Science Teachers Association Represents elementary and high school science teachers

Parents and Students 

United States Student Association Represents students

National Parent Teacher Association Includes high school and elementary school parents
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 13 — 

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:14 

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.

 

14 The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) was invited to 

participate in an interview for this study but declined. 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 14 — 

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 

Salient Issues 

Source and Resolution: 

Effective 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Academic Years 

Ensuring Continued Access to 

Student Loans Act of 2008

(H.R. 5715): Jan. 1, 2009 

Higher Education Opportunity 

Act (H.R. 4137): Effective July 

1, 2009 

Eligibility Requirements for ACGs and National SMART Grants

Adding “Merit” Aid to Basic 

Pell Requirements 

Legislation; No changes to the 

Final Regulations dated Oct. 29, 

2007. 

No change. No change. 

Direct Entry into College in 

Years One and Two 

Legislation; This issue only 

affects students in the first two 

implementation years. 

No change. No change. 

Full-time Enrollment Legislation. Students enrolled at least halftime are now eligible. No change. 

Degree Programs 

 

Students enrolled in 1–2 year 

certificate programs at degreegranting institutions are now 

eligible. 

No change to “program of study.”

U.S. Citizenship 

 

Students who are permanent 

residents are now eligible. 

Rigorous High School 

Program No changes to the Final 

Regulations dated Oct. 29, 2007. 

Only states can define “rigorous 

secondary school program” of 

study. 

States given increased control 

over defining rigorous secondary 

school programs of study. 

“Academic Year” Defining 

Student’s Initial and Ongoing 

Eligibility 

Statutory requirements, Interim 

and Final Regulations. The 

Department issued clarifications 

in the Final Regulations. 

“Academic year” changed to 

“year,” permitting institutions to 

use usual grade level progression 

to measure progress through a 

program. 

Cont’d. next page. 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 15 — 

Table 3. Development and resolution of salient concerns—Continued 

Salient Issues 

Source and Resolution: 

Effective 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Academic Years 

Ensuring Continued Access to 

Student Loans Act of 2008

(H.R. 5715): Jan. 1, 2009 

Higher Education Opportunity 

Act (H.R. 4137): Effective July 1, 

2009

Regulations 

Mandatory Participation Interim and Final Regulations. No change. No change. 

No changes to the Final 

Regulations dated Oct. 29, 2007. 

Four-year High School 

Transcript Interim and Final Regulations. 

Statutory requirement, no 

change. 

No changes to the Final 

Regulations dated Oct. 29, 2007. 

Determining Eligibility of 

Majors/Declaration of Majors 

The Department issued 

clarifications in the Final 

Regulations and provided 

institutions with a process to 

petition for the inclusion of 

additional majors. 

Students enrolled in National 

SMART-eligible courses at liberal 

arts institutions that do not offer 

National SMART majors are now 

eligible. 

No change. 

National SMART eligibility 

expanded to include students 

enrolled in the fifth year of a fiveyear degree program. 

No change. 

Postsecondary GPA Legislation; The Department 

issued clarifications in the Final 

Regulations dated Oct. 29, 2007. 

No change. No change. 

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 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 16 — 

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 Pelleligible 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.”15 

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.16

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.”17 

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 

 

15 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. 

16 Inside Higher Ed, “Are Students Getting National SMART?”, Dec. 14, 2006. Available at: 

http://insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2006/12/14/National SMART. 17 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: 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648027e67d. 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 17 — 

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. 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 18 — 

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.”18 

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. 

 

18 Inside Higher Ed, “Education Department Accused of Misreading Law,” Aug. 1, 2006. Available at: 

http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/01/grants. 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 19 — 

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 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 20 — 

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.19 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.20 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.21

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).22 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 

 

19 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. 

20 The 4th Annual AP Report to the Nation. 2007. The College Board. Available at: 

http://www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/194817.html. 

21 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. 

22 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. 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 21 — 

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.23 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 

 

23 Inside Higher Ed, “Grants Given, and Taken Away,” Aug. 25, 2006. Available at: 

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/25/smart. 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 22 — 

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. 24 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.”25

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 

 

24 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: 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648027e1d0. 

25 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: 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648027dc8d. 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 23 — 

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 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 24 — 

infringement of institutional autonomy.”26 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,”27 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.”28 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.”29 This sentiment was echoed by the director of 

financial aid at Plymouth State University, “The processing requirements needed to identify 

 

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

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

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

29 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: 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648027e8b4. 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 25 — 

eligible ACG students is excessive. . . . The ACG program requires extreme manual 

processing.”30

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.31

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). 

 

30 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: 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648027be3c. 

31 Final regulations (FR Doc E6-18197), Nov. 1, 2006. Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 211. 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 26 — 

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 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 27 — 

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 selfidentification 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 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 28 — 

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 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 29 — 

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 
CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY OF THE ACG/NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS 

— 30 — 

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. 
— 31 —

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.32

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.33 To achieve recognition, students in participating states must 

 

32 A description of the requirements in each state is available at: http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/about/ac-smart/stateprograms.html. 33 More information on this initiative and a current list of participating states is available at: 

http://www.wiche.edu/statescholars/. 
CHAPTER 3. RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

— 32 — 

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).34 

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.35 Some of the state programs were based 

solely on completing specific courses, while others had additional or different requirements.36

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. 

 

34 Available at: http://www.collegeboard.com. 

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

36 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. 
CHAPTER 3. RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

— 33 — 

Figure 2.—Number of states with one to five or more ways to meet the rigorous curriculum requirement for 

Figure 2.—the ACG: 2006–07

NOTE: Includes 50 states and the District of Columbia.

SOURCE: Derived from state information at U.S. Department of Education Web site:

http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/about/ac-smart/state-programs.html.

6

16 15

10

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

Two Three Four Five More than five

Number of ways to meet rigorous curriculum requirement

Number of

states

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.37 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 

 

37 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 curriculumbased programs. 
CHAPTER 3. RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

— 34 — 

Math 

courses

Science 

courses

States Program name

English 

(four 

years)

Math 

(three 

years)

Science 

(three 

years)

Social 

studies 

(three 

years)

Language

other

than

English

(one 

year)

At least 

three 

years 

including 

algebra I 

and a 

higherlevel 

course

Three 

years 

with at 

least 

two 

from 

biology, 

chemistry, or 

physics

State 

exams 

or local 

assessments GPA

AP/IB 

courses 

or 

exams 

or dual 

enrollment 

courses

Specific 

scores 

on

PSAT/ 

SAT or 

ACT

Senior 

project

Other 

noncourse 

requirement

Alabama Advanced Academic Endorsement √ >> > > √ √√

High Schools That Work Award of Educational Achievement √

Alaska NoneArizona Dual Credit Coursework Program √ √Arkansas Academic Challenge Core Curriculum √ > √ √ > √√ √ √

Coursework Option √√√ √

— √ √

California California Golden State Seal Merit Diploma √

A–G Requirements √ √ << > √ <

Colorado Higher Education Admissions Requirements √ √ √ √

— √ √

Connecticut Dual Enrollment Program √ √

Technical High School System Program √√√ √

— √ √ √

Delaware Distinguished Achievement Diploma √ √

Delaware Coursework Requirements √√√ √ √ √ √High Schools That Work Award of Educational 

Achievement √

D.C. NoneFlorida Bright Futures Program √√√ √ > √ √Georgia College Preparatory with Distinction Diploma √ > √ > > √√ √Hawaii High Schools That Work Award of Educational 

Achievement √

Idaho Idaho College Admission Core √√√ < — √ √Illinois NoneIndiana Indiana Academic Honors Diploma √ > √ √ > √√ √

Indiana Core 40 √√√ √

— √ √

Iowa Iowa Coursework Requirements √√√ √

— √

Table 4.

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.

—Detail on rigorous high school programs approved by the U.S. Department of Education, by state: 2006–07

Comparison with the ED course-based curriculum*

Other requirements Curriculum
CHAPTER 3. RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

— 35 — 

Math 

courses

Science 

courses

States Program name

English 

(four 

years)

Math 

(three 

years)

Science 

(three 

years)

Social 

studies 

(three 

years)

Language

other

than

English

(one 

year)

At least 

three 

years 

including 

algebra I 

and a 

higherlevel 

course

Three 

years 

with at 

least 

two 

from 

biology, 

chemistry, or 

physics

State 

exams 

or local 

assessments GPA

AP/IB 

courses 

or 

exams 

or dual 

enrollment 

courses

Specific 

scores 

on

PSAT/ 

SAT or 

ACT

Senior 

project

Other 

noncourse 

requirement

Kansas Kansas Scholars Curriculum √ > √ √ > √ √Kentucky Kentucky Commonwealth Diploma √√√ < √√√ √

Kentucky PreCollege Curriculum √√√ √ > √ √

Louisiana Academic Endorsement to Standard Diploma √√ √ √ √

TOPS/Regents High School Core Curriculum √√√ √ > √ √

Maine Maine Course Work Program Number One √ > √ √ > √ √

Maine Course Work Program Number Two √ √ <<— √

Maine Advanced Placement Program √

Maine Dual Enrollment Program √ √

Maryland NoneMassachusett Massachusetts Certificate of Mastery √ √√ √

Board of Higher Education Admissions Criteria √√√ < > √ √

Michigan Michigan Merit Standard √ > √ √

— √ √

Minnesota Minnesota Coursework Requirements √√√ √ > √ √Mississippi Dual Enrollment Program of Study √ √Missouri College Preparatory Studies Certificate √ √ < √ — √ √ √

High School Core Curriculum Requirements √ √ < √ > √

Montana Montana Rigorous Core √ > √ √

— √ √

Nebraska NoneNevada Nevada Advanced Diploma √√√ √

— √

New Dual Enrollment Program √ √New Jersey NoneNew Mexico NoneNew York Regents Diploma with Honors/Advanced 

Designation √√√ > √ √

North Carolina College/University Preparation Course of Study √ > √ √ > √ √

Table 4.

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.

—Detail on rigorous high school programs approved by the U.S. Department of Education, by state: 2006–07—Continued

Comparison with the ED course-based curriculum*

Curriculum Other requirements
CHAPTER 3. RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

— 36 — 

Math 

courses

Science 

courses

States Program name

English 

(four 

years)

Math 

(three 

years)

Science 

(three 

years)

Social 

studies 

(three 

years)

Language

other

than

English

(one 

year)

At least 

three 

years 

including 

algebra I 

and a 

higherlevel 

course

Three 

years 

with at 

least 

two 

from 

biology, 

chemistry, or 

physics

State 

exams 

or local 

assessments GPA

AP/IB 

courses 

or 

exams 

or dual 

enrollment 

courses

Specific 

scores 

on

PSAT/ 

SAT or 

ACT

Senior 

project

Other 

noncourse 

requirement

North Dakota Admission Standards to Baccalaureate/Graduate 

Institutions √√√ √

— √ √

Dual Enrollment Program √ √

Ohio Ohio Honors Diploma √√√ √ > √√ √ √Oklahoma Oklahoma Certificate of Distinction √ >> > > √ √ √√

Oklahoma Higher Learning Access Program √ √ < √ — √

High Schools That Work Award of Educational Achievement √

Oregon NonePennsylvania Pennsylvania Certificate of Distinction √

Project 720 College and Career Prep Course Sequence √ > √ > — √ √

Dual Enrollment Program √Admission to State Institutions of Higher √√√ √ > √ √√High Schools That Work Award of Educational Achievement √

Rhode Island NoneSouth Academic Achievement Honors Award √ > √ √ > √ √ √√ √

College Preparatory Course Prerequisite Requirements √√√ √ > √ √High Schools That Work Award of Educational Achievement √

South Dakota NoneTennessee Tennessee University Path Curriculum √√√ √ > √ √

Tennessee Dual Enrollment Program √ √

Table 4.

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.

—Detail on rigorous high school programs approved by the U.S. Department of Education, by state: 2006–07—Continued

Comparison with the ED course-based curriculum*

Curriculum Other requirements
CHAPTER 3. RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

— 37 — 

Math 

courses

Science 

courses

States Program name

English 

(four 

years)

Math 

(three 

years)

Science 

(three 

years)

Social 

studies 

(three 

years)

Language

other

than

English

(one 

year)

At least 

three 

years 

including 

algebra I 

and a 

higherlevel 

course

Three 

years 

with at 

least 

two 

from 

biology, 

chemistry, or 

physics

State 

exams 

or local 

assessments GPA

AP/IB 

courses 

or 

exams 

or dual 

enrollment 

courses

Specific 

scores 

on

PSAT/ 

SAT or 

ACT

Senior 

project

Other 

noncourse 

requirement

Texas Texas Distinguished Achievement Diploma √√√ > > √ √

Recommended High School Program √√√ > > √ √

Utah Utah Concurrent Enrollment Program √ √Vermont NoneVirginia Virginia Advanced Studies Diploma √ >> > > √ √

Virginia Coursework Requirements √√√ √

— √ √

Washington Washington Scholar Designation √

Washington Coursework Requirements √ √ < √ — √

West Virginia West Virginia PROMISE √√√ √

— √ √ √ √

Earn a Degree - Graduate Early (EDGE) √√√ √

— √ √√

Dual Credit Program √√√ √

— √ √ √

High Schools That Work Award of Educational Achievement √

Wisconsin Wisconsin Coursework Requirements √√√ √ √ √ √

Wisconsin Dual Enrollment Program √ √

Wyoming Advanced Endorsement Diploma √

Assured Admission to the University of Wyoming √√√ √

— √ √

* “√” indicates that the state program required the same number of courses, “>” that it required more, “<” that it required fewer, and “—” that there was no requirement in that subject. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/about/ac-smart/state-programs06.html and selected State Department of Education Web sites. 

Table 4.

—Detail on rigorous high school programs approved by the U.S. Department of Education, by state: 2006–07—Continued

Comparison with the ED course-based curriculum*

Curriculum Other requirements
CHAPTER 3. RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

— 38 — 

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 coursebased 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. 
CHAPTER 3. RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

— 39 — 

Table 5.

—Summary of options for qualifying for an ACG and comparison of approved state programs to ED course-based curriculum, by state: 2006–07

States

State 

Scholars 

Initiative

ED coursebased 

curriculum AP/IB Approved state options

More 

rigorous Similar

Less 

rigorous

Difficult

to

compare

In addition to courses

Instead 

of 

courses

Alabama √ √ Advanced Academic Endorsement √ √

High Schools That Work Award of Educational Achievement √ √

Alaska √ √ NoneArizona √ √√ Dual Credit Coursework Program √Arkansas √ √√ Academic Challenge Core Curriculum √ √

Coursework Option √

California √ √ California Golden State Seal Merit Diploma √

A–G Requirements √

Colorado √ √√ Higher Education Admissions Requirements √Connecticut √ √√ Dual Enrollment Program √

Technical High School System Program √ √

Delaware √ √ Distinguished Achievement Diploma √

Delaware Coursework Requirements √High Schools That Work Award of Educational Achievement √ √

D.C. √ √ NoneFlorida √ √ Bright Futures Program √

Georgia √ √ College Preparatory with Distinction Diploma √ √Hawaii √ √ High Schools That Work Award of Educational Achievement √ √

Idaho √ √ Idaho College Admission Core √Illinois √ √ NoneIndiana √ √√ Indiana Academic Honors Diploma √ √

 Indiana Core 40 √

Iowa √ √ Iowa Coursework Requirements √

Kansas √ √ Kansas Scholars Curriculum √

Kentucky √ √√ Kentucky Commonwealth Diploma √ √

Kentucky PreCollege Curriculum √

Louisiana √ √√ Academic Endorsement to Standard Diploma √

TOPS/Regents High School Core Curriculum √

Maine √ √ Maine Course Work Program Number One √

Maine Course Work Program Number Two √Maine Advanced Placement Program √Maine Dual Enrollment Program √

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.

State-required courses compared 

with ED course-based curriculum

State program has 

non–course work Federal options
CHAPTER 3. RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

— 40 — 

Table 5.

—Summary of options for qualifying for an ACG and comparison of approved state programs to ED course-based curriculum, by state: 2006–07—Continued

States

State 

Scholars 

Initiative

ED coursebased 

curriculum AP/IB Approved state options

More 

rigorous Similar

Less 

rigorous

Difficult

to

compare

In addition to courses

Instead 

of 

courses

Maryland √ √√ NoneMassachusetts √ √√ Massachussetts Certificate of Mastery √

Board of Higher Education Admissions Criteria √

Michigan √ √√ Michigan Merit Standard √Minnesota √ √ Minnesota Coursework Requirements √

Mississippi √ √√ Dual Enrollment Program of Study √

Missouri √ √ Missouri College Preparatory Studies Certificate √ √

High School Core Curriculum Requirements √

Montana √ √ Montana Rigorous Core √Nebraska √ √√ NoneNevada √ √ Nevada Advanced Diploma √ √New Hampshire √ √ Dual Enrollment Program √New Jersey √ √√ NoneNew Mexico √ √√ NoneNew York √ √ Regents Diploma with Honors/Advanced Designation √ √North Carolina √ √√ College/University Preparation Course of Study √

North Dakota √ √ Admission Standards to Baccalaureate/Graduate Institutions √

Dual Enrollment Program √

Ohio √ √ Ohio Honors Diploma √ √

Oklahoma √ √√ Oklahoma Certificate of Distinction √ √

Oklahoma Higher Learning Access Program √

High Schools That Work Award of Educational Achievement √ √

Oregon √ √ NonePennsylvania √ √ Pennsylvania Certificate of Distinction √

Project 720 College and Career Prep Course Sequence √Dual Enrollment Program √Admission to State Institutions of Higher Education √High Schools That Work Award of Educational Achievement √ √

Rhode Island √ √√ NoneSouth Carolina √ √ Academic Achievement Honors Award √ √

College Prep Course Prerequisite Requirements √High Schools That Work Award of Educational Achievement √ √

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.

Federal options

State-required courses compared 

with ED course-based curriculum

State program has 

non–course work 
CHAPTER 3. RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

— 41 — 

Table 5.

—Summary of options for qualifying for an ACG and comparison of approved state programs to ED course-based curriculum, by state: 2006–07—Continued

States

State 

Scholars 

Initiative

ED coursebased 

curriculum AP/IB Approved state options

More 

rigorous Similar

Less 

rigorous

Difficult

to

compare

In addition to courses

Instead 

of 

courses

South Dakota √ √ NoneTennessee √ √√ Tennessee University Path Curriculum √

Tennessee Dual Enrollment Program √

Texas √ √ Texas Distinguished Achievement Diploma √

Recommended High School Program √

Utah √ √√ Utah Concurrent Enrollment Program √

Vermont √ √ NoneVirginia √ √√ Virginia Advanced Studies Diploma √

Virginia Coursework Requirements √

Washington √ √√ Washington Scholar Designation √

Washington Coursework Requirements √

West Virginia √ √√ West Virginia PROMISE √ √

Earn a Degree—Graduate Early (EDGE) √ √Dual Credit Program √ √High Schools That Work Award of Educational Achievement √ √

Wisconsin √ √ Wisconsin Coursework Requirements √

Wisconsin Dual Enrollment Program √

Wyoming √ √ Advanced Endorsement Diploma √

Assured Admission to the University of Wyoming √

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/about/ac-smart/state-programs06.html and selected State Department of Education Web sites. Comparison to ED course-based curriculum and noncoursework criteria derived from Table 1. 

Federal options

State-required courses compared 

with ED course-based curriculum

State program has 

non–course work 
CHAPTER 3. RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

— 42 — 

Figure 3.—Among the 35 states with course-based approved rigorous programs, number of states in which 

Figure 3.—the course requirements of the least rigorous approved program matched or exceeded the 

Figure 1.—ED course-based curriculum: 2006

a

 Including algebra I and a higher-level course.

b

 Including at least two courses from biology, chemistry, or physics.

NOTE: Based on 35 of the 36 states with curriculum-based approved programs. Hawaii was not included because it had 

only the High Schools That Work Award, which is difficult to compare with the ED course-based curriculum.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/about/ac-smart/state-programs06.html

and selected State Department of Education Web sites.

35 33

27

30

17

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

Four years

of English

Three years

of mathematics

Three years

of science

Three years

of social

studies

One year of a 

language

other than

English

All of these 

requirements

Number of 

states

a

b

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.38 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 

 

38 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. 
CHAPTER 3. RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

— 43 — 

English Math Science

Social 

studies

Language

other 

than

English Total units

Course

requirement

changes

will apply

to the class of

Alabama 4 4 4 4 0 24 √

Alaska 4 2 2 3 0 21 ○

Arizona 4 2 2 2.5 0 20 √

Arkansas 4 3 3 3 0 21 2009, 2010

California 3 2 2 3 0 13 ○

Colorado — — — — — — 2007

Connecticut 4 3 2 3 0 20

Delaware 4 3 3 3 0 22 2011, 2013

D.C. 4 3 3 3.5 2 23.5 2008

Florida 4 3 3 3 0 24 2011 √

Georgia 4 4 3 3 2* 22 ○

Hawaii 4 3 3 4 0 22 2010

Idaho 4.5 2 2 2.5 0 21 √

Illinois 3 2 1 2 0 16 2009, 2010, 2011

Indiana 4 2 2 2 0 20 2010, 2011

Iowa — — — 1.5 — — 2011

Kansas 4 2 2 3 0 21 2009

Kentucky 4 3 3 3 0 22 2012

Louisiana 4 3 3 3 0 23 2009 ○

Maine 4 2 2 2 0 16 2007, 2010

Maryland 4 3 3 3 0 21

Massachusetts — — — — — — √

Michigan — — — 0.5 — — 2011, 2016

Minnesota — — — — — 21.5 2008, 2011, 2015

Mississippi 4 3 3 3 0 20 2009, 2012 √

Missouri 3 2 2 2 0 22 2010

Montana 4 2 2 2 0 20

Nebraska — — — — — 200 credit hours

Nevada 4 3 2 2 — 22.5 ○

New Hampshire 4 2 2 2.5 0 19.75

New Jersey 4 3 3 3 0 22 2008 √

New Mexico 4 3 2 3 0 23 2009

New York 4 3 3 4 1 22 ○

North Carolina 4 4 3 3 2* 20

North Dakota — — — — — 21

Ohio 4 3 3 3 0 21

Oklahoma 4 3 3 3 0 23 2010

Oregon 3 2 2 3 0 22 2010

Pennsylvania — — — — — —

Rhode Island 4 3 2 2 2 18 2008

South Carolina 4 4 3 3 2* 24 √

South Dakota 4 2.5 2.5 3 0 22 2008, 2010

Tennessee 4 3 3 3 2* 20 √

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.

Table 6.—Graduation requirements for a standard high school diploma, by state: 2006

Units by subject Exit exam 

based on 

standards 

for 10th 

grade or 

States higher
CHAPTER 3. RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

— 44 — 

English Math Science

Social 

studies

Language

other 

than

English Total units

Course

requirement

changes

will apply

to the class of

Texas 4 3 2 3 0 22 2008 √

Utah 3 2 2 2.5 0 15 2011

Vermont 4 3 3 3 0 20

Virginia 4 3 3 3 0 22 √

Washington 3 2 2 2.5 0 19 2008

West Virginia 4 3 3 3 0 24 2008, 2009, 2010

Wisconsin 4 2 2 3 0 13

Wyoming 4 3 3 3 0 13

√ Standards for 10th grade or higher required for all subjects.

○ Standards less than 10th grade in one or more subjects.

— No state-determined requirements. 

* Required for college prep program. 

SOURCE: Course requirements: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved Jan. 2007 from 

http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=735. The information was gathered in 2005 and is updated as new policies are 

enacted. Information shown here based on requirements for 2006–07. State exit exam requirements: Center on Education 

Policy (2007), Table 1.

Table 6.—Graduation requirements for a standard high school diploma, by state: 2006—Continued

States

Units by subject Exit exam 

based on 

standards 

for 10th 

grade or 

higher

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. 
CHAPTER 3. RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

— 45 — 

Figure 4.—Number of states requiring courses in various subjects for a standard high school diploma in 

Figure 4.—2006

* In four of these states, a language other than English was required only for a college prep program.

SOURCE: Course requirements: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved January 2007, from 

http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=735. The information was first gathered in 2005 and is updated as new policies 

are enacted. Information shown here based on requirements for 2006–07. State exit exam requirements: “Diplomas 

Count,” Education Week, June 22, 2006.

37

27

22

31

7 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

At least

four years

of English

At least

three years of

mathematics

At least

three years

of science

At least

three years of

social studies

At least

one year of

a language

other than

English*

All of these

requirements

Number 

of states

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. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
— 47 —

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.39 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 

 

39 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. 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 48 — 

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. 

Figure 5.—Percentage of eligible institutions awarding ACGs, by type of institution: 2006–07

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

28

42

62

83

87

94

0 20 40 60 80 100

For-profit two-year

Private nonprofit two-year

For-profit four-year

Private nonprofit four-year

Public two-year

Public four-year

Percent of eligible institutions awarding ACGs

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. 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 49 — 

Figure 6.—Percentage of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients who also received an ACG, by type 

Figure 6.—of institution attended: 2006–07

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

1

1

3

8

23

26

0 10 20 30 40 50

For-profit two-year

For-profit four-year

Public two-year

Private nonprofit two-year

Private nonprofit four-year

Public four-year

Percent of first- and second-year Pell Grant 

recipients who received ACGs

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. 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 50 — 

Figure 7.—Percentage distribution of first- and second-year ACG recipients by amount received: 2006–07

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

83

72

1

2

14

20

1 1

1 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

First year

ACG recipients

Second year

ACG recipients

Other amounts

One-third ($250/$433)

One-half ($375/$650)

Two-thirds ($500/$867)

Full award ($750/$1,300)

Percent

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. 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 51 — 

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. 

Figure 8.—Percentage distribution of institutions participating in the ACG program by the number of ACGs 

Figure 8.—awarded: 2006–07

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

22

33

19

12 10

4

0

10

20

30

40

50

1–10 11–50 51–100 101–200 201–500 More than 500

Percent

Number of ACGs awarded

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). Secondyear 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. 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 52 — 

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 secondyear students should increase in 2007–08. 

Figure 9.—Percentage distribution of ACG recipients by class level: 2006–07

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

76

23

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

First-year Second-year Both levels

(different terms)

Percent

Class level

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 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 53 — 

to 41 percent of first- and second-year students who only received Pell Grants and no ACGs 

(Appendix Table E-9). 

Figure 10.—Percentage distributions of ACG recipients and students who received only Pell Grants at 

Figure 10.—ACG-participating institutions by gender and age: 2006–07

# Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

37

63

54

45

33

67

12

42

47

0

20

40

60

80

100

Male Female 18 or younger 19–23 24 or older

ACG Pell Grant only

Gender Age

#

Percent

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). 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 54 — 

Figure 11.—Percentage distribution of dependent ACG recipients and dependent students who received 

Figure 11.—only Pell Grants at ACG-participating institutions by parents’ income: 2006–07

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

19 22 2319

11

6

28 25 22

15

7

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

Less than

$10,000

$10,000–

19,999

$20,000–

29,999

$30,000–

39,999

$40,000–

49,999

$50,000

or more

ACG Pell Grant only

Percent

Income of dependent students’ parents

The federal Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is a measure40 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). 

 

40 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. 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 55 — 

Figure 12.—Of all dependent first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients at ACG-participating institutions, 

Figure 12.—percentage who received ACGs and only Pell Grants, by Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 

Figure 12.—2006–07

NOTE: 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 as an index number and is used to determine the Pell Grant amount. The average family 

incomes corresponding to these EFC categories were $9,900, $21,500, $31,400, $36,300, and $40,400. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

15 23 26 27 29

85 77 74 73 71

0

20

40

60

80

100

Zero 1–999 1,000–1,999 2,000–2,999 3,000 or more

Pell Grant only

ACG

Percent

Dependent student EFC

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 EFC41 of 3,000 or higher received somewhat more from their ACGs ($810) than their Pell 

Grants ($630). 

 

41 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. 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 56 — 

Figure 13.— Average grant amounts awarded to dependent first- and second-year students with ACGs, by 

Figure 13.— Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–07

NOTE: 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 as an index number and is used to determine the Pell Grant amount. The average family 

incomes corresponding to these EFC categories were $9,900, $21,500, $31,400, $36,300, and $40,400.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

$3,807 $3,467

$2,423

$1,484

$632

$763

$808

$801

$811

$814

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Zero 1–999 1,000–1,999 2,000–2,999 3,000 or more

ACG

Pell Grant

Dependent student EFC

$

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. 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 57 — 

Figure 14.— Percentage distribution of Pell Grant and ACG dollars for dependent first- and second-year 

Figure 14.— students by Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–07

NOTE: 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 as an index number and is used to determine the Pell Grant amount. The average family 

incomes corresponding to these EFC categories were $9,900, $21,500, $31,400, $36,300, and $40,400. Detail may not 

sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

46

28

15

8

3

32

22

17 16

12

43

26

15

10

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

Zero 1–999 1,000–1,999 2,000–2,999 3,000 or more

Percent

EFC

Pell Grant total amount ACG total amount Combined total amount

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 coursebased curriculum. Another 35 percent qualified by meeting the requirements of a statedesignated 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.42 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). 

 

42 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) (http://www.dodea.edu/datacenter/enrollment_display.cfm). This suggests 

some coding errors. 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 58 — 

Figure 15.—Percentage distribution of ACG recipients by type of qualification for an ACG: 2006–07

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

State

program

35%

AP or IB

5%

State

Scholars

2%

Unknown

2%

ED course-defined 

curriculum

57%

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. 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 59 — 

Table 7.—Number of first- and second-year students at four-year institutions with Pell Grants, number and

Table 7.—percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, and states with rigorous admissions programs, by 

Table 7.—state of student’s residence: 2006–07 

Number of Percent of first- State has approved

first- and Number of and second- rigorous high school

second-year Pell Grant year Pell Grant program based on

State of student’s students with recipients recipients four-year college

residence Pell Grants with ACGs with ACGs admissions standards

 Total 1,414,861 261,933 18.5

Massachusetts 19,904 6,362 32.0 √

Nebraska 8,819 2,574 29.2

California 95,996 27,626 28.8 √

Pennsylvania 53,041 14,903 28.1 √

Vermont 2,796 737 26.4

Iowa 12,166 3,195 26.3

Wisconsin 22,180 5,615 25.3

Maine 7,853 1,947 24.8

North Carolina 37,377 9,110 24.4 √

New Jersey 28,240 6,879 24.4

Minnesota 21,137 5,028 23.8

Connecticut 9,484 2,153 22.7

South Carolina 21,076 4,498 21.3 √

Ohio 63,483 13,256 20.9

Oregon 10,193 2,106 20.7

New Hampshire 4,724 976 20.7

North Dakota 4,416 911 20.6 √

All others 5,257 1,072 20.4

Maryland 16,585 3,363 20.3

Kansas 11,335 2,288 20.2

Louisiana 28,258 5,700 20.2

Texas 104,268 20,816 20.0

Virginia 24,219 4,781 19.7

Rhode Island 3,997 786 19.7

New York 108,301 21,025 19.4

South Dakota 5,939 1,143 19.2

Illinois 48,377 9,046 18.7

Washington 17,831 3,149 17.7 √

Indiana 40,500 7,093 17.5

Kentucky 24,955 4,325 17.3 √

Colorado 18,013 2,998 16.6 √

Wyoming 1,269 210 16.5 √

Oklahoma 20,093 3,320 16.5 √

Mississippi 13,038 2,101 16.1

Georgia 53,979 8,662 16.0 √

Arkansas 19,240 3,067 15.9 √

Tennessee 32,057 4,861 15.2 √

Missouri 28,506 4,209 14.8 √

Hawaii 4,071 578 14.2

Montana 7,237 996 13.8

Idaho 10,830 1,476 13.6 √

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 60 — 

Table 7.—Number of first- and second-year students at four-year institutions with Pell Grants, number and

Table 7.—percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, and states with rigorous admissions programs, by 

Table 7.—state of student’s residence: 2006–07—Continued 

Number of Percent of first- State has approved

first- and Number of and second- rigorous high school

second-year Pell Grant year Pell Grant program based on

State of student’s students with recipients recipients four-year college

residence Pell Grants with ACGs with ACGs admissions standards

Puerto Rico 82,634 11,110 13.4

West Virginia 12,506 1,578 12.6 √

Delaware 2,748 334 12.2

District of Columbia 3,366 393 11.7

Florida 106,901 12,092 11.3

Nevada 5,688 642 11.3

Alabama 22,944 2,286 10.0

Michigan 57,700 5,706 9.9

Arizona 15,619 1,144 7.3

New Mexico 14,905 964 6.5

Utah 15,317 622 4.1

Alaska 3,493 121 3.5

student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 5 at four-year institutions were excluded.

(Sept. 21, 2007).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

NOTE: This table is based on unduplicated records. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants, but 

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 statedesignated programs that were not the same as their state of residence.43 

 

43 They may have attended boarding schools in another state, for example. 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 61 — 

Table 8.

—Number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients who also received an ACG and the number and percentage distribution of ACG recipients 

Table 8.—by type of qualification, by state of student’s residence: 2006–07

Percent

Total of firstnumber and

of Pell second- State

Grant year Pell State desigState of students Grant State desig- Out-of- State nated Out-ofstudent’s with students Scholars nated AP state Un- Scholars pro- AP state Unresidence ACGs with ACGs Initiative program Courses or IB program known Initiative gram Courses or IB program known

 Total 299,701 10.2 6,597 102,587 169,682 13,328 1,962 5,353 2.2 34.2 56.6 4.4 0.7 1.8

Maine 2,033 17.1 — 571 1,339 78 13 32 — 28.1 65.9 3.8 0.6 1.6Pennsylvania 15,974 15.9 — 1,706 13,302 888 45 33 — 10.7 83.3 5.6 0.3 0.2Massachusetts 6,772 15.9 315 2,278 3,856 266 17 40 4.7 33.6 56.9 3.9 0.3 0.6Nebraska 3,065 15.8 100 — 2,925 9 15 16 3.3 — 95.4 0.3 0.5 0.5Vermont 759 15.3 — — 654 49 27 29 — — 86.2 6.5 3.6 3.8North Dakota 1,039 15.2 — 863 142 6 25 3 — 83.1 13.7 0.6 2.4 0.3South Dakota 1,232 14.5 — — 1,141 11 17 63 — — 92.6 0.9 1.4 5.1New Hampshire 1,052 14.0 — 41 867 103 25 16 — 3.9 82.4 9.8 2.4 1.5Louisiana 6,322 13.9 788 4,037 1,404 28 59 6 12.5 63.9 22.2 0.4 0.9 0.1Wisconsin 6,126 12.9 — 1,641 4,217 191 69 8 — 26.8 68.8 3.1 1.1 0.1New Jersey 8,146 12.4 974 — 6,521 379 109 163 12.0 — 80.1 4.7 1.3 2.0New York 24,217 12.1 — 4,564 17,860 1,583 96 114 — 18.8 73.7 6.5 0.4 0.5Minnesota 5,585 11.6 — 2,525 2,878 133 29 20 — 45.2 51.5 2.4 0.5 0.4Oklahoma 4,330 11.3 92 2,617 1,564 40 14 3 2.1 60.4 36.1 0.9 0.3 0.1Texas 28,715 11.2 — 22,961 4,606 934 177 37 — 80.0 16.0 3.3 0.6 0.1Montana 1,119 11.1 — 289 737 75 16 2 — 25.8 65.9 6.7 1.4 0.2Ohio 14,297 10.9 — 766 12,931 285 69 246 — 5.4 90.4 2.0 0.5 1.7North Carolina 10,342 10.9 189 4,795 4,367 952 32 7 1.8 46.4 42.2 9.2 0.3 0.1District of Columbia 406 10.7 — — 328 45 20 13 — — 80.8 11.1 4.9 3.2Indiana 7,564 10.7 176 6,312 987 58 26 5 2.3 83.4 13.0 0.8 0.3 0.1Kansas 2,776 10.6 — 846 1,805 58 40 27 — 30.5 65.0 2.1 1.4 1.0Iowa 3,585 10.5 — 262 2,737 48 14 524 — 7.3 76.3 1.3 0.4 14.6

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.

Number of ACG recipients by type of qualification for ACG

Percentage distribution of

ACG recipients by type of qualification for ACG
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 62 — 

Table 8.

—Number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients who also received an ACG and the number and percentage distribution of ACG recipients 

Table 8.—by type of qualification, by state of student’s residence: 2006–07—Continued

Percent

Total of firstnumber and

of Pell second- State

Grant year Pell State desigState of students Grant State desig- Out-of- State nated Out-ofstudent’s with students Scholars nated AP state Un- Scholars pro- AP state Unresidence ACGs with ACGs Initiative program Courses or IB program known Initiative gram Courses or IB program known

South Carolina 5,203 10.4 — 1,908 3,154 109 23 9 — 36.7 60.6 2.1 0.4 0.2Rhode Island 803 10.2 23 — 567 26 12 175 2.9 — 70.6 3.2 1.5 21.8Idaho 1,543 10.1 — 669 776 79 17 2 — 43.4 50.3 5.1 1.1 0.1Connecticut 2,235 10.1 193 24 1,780 189 31 18 8.6 1.1 79.6 8.5 1.4 0.8Georgia 9,431 9.9 — 2,347 6,056 947 75 6 — 24.9 64.2 10.0 0.8 0.1Virginia 5,414 9.9 213 2,540 2,364 235 46 16 3.9 46.9 43.7 4.3 0.8 0.3Tennessee 5,921 9.9 1,285 1,670 2,757 90 43 76 21.7 28.2 46.6 1.5 0.7 1.3Arkansas 3,883 9.8 502 1,376 1,932 25 40 8 12.9 35.4 49.8 0.6 1.0 0.2California 29,877 9.7 — 20,395 8,005 1,390 57 30 — 68.3 26.8 4.7 0.2 0.1Maryland 3,816 9.7 260 — 3,301 202 39 14 6.8 — 86.5 5.3 1.0 0.4Florida 15,106 9.3 — 7,416 7,213 334 82 61 — 49.1 47.7 2.2 0.5 0.4West Virginia 1,660 9.1 87 726 774 58 15 — 5.2 43.7 46.6 3.5 0.9 —Wyoming 360 8.9 — 46 299 11 3 1 — 12.8 83.1 3.1 0.8 0.3Missouri 5,034 8.8 — 1,638 3,280 72 28 16 — 32.5 65.2 1.4 0.6 0.3Hawaii 615 8.8 — 41 512 39 16 7 — 6.7 83.3 6.3 2.6 1.1Kentucky 4,646 8.8 70 668 3,800 74 29 5 1.5 14.4 81.8 1.6 0.6 0.1Nevada 663 8.5 — 131 480 34 15 3 — 19.8 72.4 5.1 2.3 0.5Colorado 3,101 8.5 57 571 2,196 249 23 5 1.8 18.4 70.8 8.0 0.7 0.2Illinois 10,135 8.5 — — 8,629 763 103 640 — — 85.1 7.5 1.0 6.3Oregon 2,340 7.4 — — 2,111 131 27 71 — — 90.2 5.6 1.2 3.0Washington 3,356 7.1 34 1,680 1,395 205 25 17 1.0 50.1 41.6 6.1 0.7 0.5Mississippi 3,439 6.8 784 22 2,566 31 27 9 22.8 0.6 74.6 0.9 0.8 0.3Alabama 3,357 6.6 — 1,251 1,929 140 34 3 — 37.3 57.5 4.2 1.0 0.1Delaware 383 6.1 — 62 271 39 6 5 — 16.2 70.8 10.2 1.6 1.3

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.

Percentage distribution of

Number of ACG recipients by type of qualification for ACG ACG recipients by type of qualification for ACG
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 63 — 

Table 8.

—Number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients who also received an ACG and the number and percentage distribution of ACG recipients 

Table 8.—by type of qualification, by state of student’s residence: 2006–07—Continued

Percent

Total of firstnumber and

of Pell second- State

Grant year Pell State desigState of students Grant State desig- Out-of- State nated Out-ofstudent’s with students Scholars nated AP state Un- Scholars pro- AP state Unresidence ACGs with ACGs Initiative program Courses or IB program known Initiative gram Courses or IB program known

Michigan 6,164 5.1 286 158 5,158 493 34 35 4.6 2.6 83.7 8.0 0.6 0.6New Mexico 1,076 4.2 47 — 962 44 14 9 4.4 — 89.4 4.1 1.3 0.8Alaska 126 3.3 — — 93 17 10 6 — — 73.8 13.5 7.9 4.8Utah 689 3.2 32 143 351 145 15 3 4.6 20.8 50.9 21.0 2.2 0.4Arizona 1,383 2.9 90 31 1,161 82 15 4 6.5 2.2 83.9 5.9 1.1 0.3Puerto Rico 11,574 11.8 — — 8,127 765 7 2,675 — — 70.2 6.6 0.1 23.1All others 912 9.2

— — 626 100 167 19

— — 68.6 11.0 18.3 2.1

— Not applicable.NOTE: This table is based on unduplicated records. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants, but student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions and greater than 5 at four-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by class level. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007).

Number of ACG recipients by type of qualification for ACG ACG recipients by type of qualification for ACG

Percentage distribution of
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 64 — 

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. 

Figure 16.—Percentage of eligible institutions participating in the SMART Grant program, by type of 

Figure 16.—institution: 2006–07

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

41

65

88

0 20 40 60 80 100

For-profit four-year

Private nonprofit

four-year

Public four-year

Percent of institutions participating

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 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 65 — 

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. 

Figure 17.—Percentage of Pell Grant recipients who also received SMART Grants by class level, by type of 

Figure 17.—participating institution: 2006–07

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

4 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

Third-year Fourth-year Total third- and fourth-year

Class level

For-profit four-year Public four-year Private nonprofit four-year

Percent of Pell 

Grant recipients

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 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 66 — 

Figure 18.—Percentage distribution of third- and fourth-year SMART Grant recipients by amount received: 

Figure 18.—2006–07

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607

(Sept. 21, 2007).

59 62

3 3

27 25

4 3

7 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Third-year Fourth-year

Other amounts

One-third ($1,333)

One-half ($2,000)

Two-thirds ($2,667)

Full award ($4,000)

Percent

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 secondyear student) and then one-half of a National SMART Grant in the second semester (as a thirdyear 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 onethird 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). 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 67 — 

Figure 19.—Percentage distribution of institutions participating in the SMART Grant Program by the 

Figure 19.—number of SMART Grant recipients: 2006–07

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607

(Sept. 21, 2007).

38

42

10

6

3 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

1–10 11–50 51–100 101–200 201–500 More than 500

Number of SMART Grant recipients

Percent

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 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 68 — 

information sciences (from 28 to 21 percent). Appendix Table E-8 presents more details on the 

demographic characteristics of National SMART Grant recipients. 

Figure 20.—Percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by class level: 2006–07

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

40

52

7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Third-year Fourth-year Both levels

(different terms)

Percent

Class level

Figure 21.—Of SMART Grant recipients and third- and fourth-year students who received only Pell Grants at 

Figure 21.—SMART Grant-participating institutions, percentage distributions by gender and age: 2006–07

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

58

42

67

33 38

62

50 50

0

20

40

60

80

100

Male Female 19–23 24 or older

SMART Grant Pell Grant only

Percent

Gender Age
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 69 — 

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 

Figure 22.—Of dependent SMART Grant recipients and dependent third- and fourth-year students who 

Figure 22.—received only Pell Grants at SMART Grant-participating institutions, percentage distribution 

Figure 22.—by parents’ income: 2006–07

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

21 21 22

18

11

7

24 23 22

17

9

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

Less than

$10,000

$10,000–

19,999

$20,000–

29,999

$30,000–

39,999

$40,000–

49,999

$50,000

or more

SMART Grant Pell Grant only

Percent

Income of dependent students’ parents
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 70 — 

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

dependent students.44 

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 thirdand 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). 

 

44 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). 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 71 — 

Figure 23.—Of all dependent third- and fourth-year students receiving Pell Grants at SMART GrantFigure 23.—participating institutions, percentage distribution by whether they received a SMART Grant, 

Figure 23.—by Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–07

NOTE: 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 as an index number and is used to determine the Pell Grant amount. The average family 

incomes corresponding to these EFC categories were $9,700, $19,700, $31,000, $36,000, and $39,900. Detail may not 

sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

6 7 888

95 93 92 92 92

0

20

40

60

80

100

Zero 1–999 1,000–1,999 2,000–2,999 3,000 or more

Pell Grant only

SMART Grant

Percent

Dependent student EFC

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. 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 72 — 

Figure 24.—Average Pell and SMART Grant amounts awarded to dependent third- and fourth-year students 

Figure 24.—with SMART Grants, by Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–07

NOTE: 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 as an index number and is used to determine the Pell Grant amount. The average family 

incomes corresponding to these EFC categories were $9,700, $19,700, $31,000, $36,000, and $39,900.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

$3,903 $3,554

$2,468

$1,500 $631

$3,239 $3,331

$3,362

$3,339

$3,338

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

Zero 1–999 1,000–1,999 2,000–2,999 3,000 or more

Dependent student EFC

Pell Grant SMART Grant

$

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. 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 73 — 

Figure 25.— Percentage distribution of Pell Grant and SMART Grant dollars for dependent third- and 

Figure 25.— fourth-year students, by Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–07

NOTE: 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 as an index number and is used to determine the Pell Grant amount. The average family 

incomes corresponding to these EFC categories were $9,700, $19,700, $31,000, $36,000, and $39,900. Detail may not 

sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

41

32

15

9

3

28

25

17 16

13

34

28

16

13

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

Zero 1–999 1,000–1,999 2,000–2,999 3,000 or more

Percent

Dependent student EFC

Pell Grant dollars SMART Grant dollars Combined dollars

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 fouryear institutions, and only 6 percent to students in for-profit four-year institutions. 
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 74 — 

Figure 26.—Percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by field of study: 2006–07

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607

(Sept. 21, 2007).

1

3

5

7

10

16

21

38

0 10 20 30 40 50

Foreign language

Multi/interdisciplinary

Technology

Mathematics

Physical sciences

Computer science

Engineering

Life sciences

Percent of SMART Grant recipients

Figure 27.—Number of SMART Grants, by field of study: 2006–07

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Foreign language

Multi/interdisciplinary

Technology

Mathematics

Physical sciences

Computer science

Engineering

Life sciences

Number of SMART Grants

23,771

13,199

9,787

6,046

4,217

3,045

1,697

609
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 75 — 

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). 

Figure 28.—Percentage distribution of SMART Grants by type of institution within field of study: 2006–07

# Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

56

57

71

70

73

43

76

72

44

43

9

30

27

24

24

28

#

#

20

#

#

33

#

#

0 20 40 60 80 100

Foreign language

Multi/interdisciplinary

Technology

Mathematics

Physical sciences

Computer science

Engineering

Life sciences

Public four-year Private nonprofit four-year For-profit four-year

Percent of SMART Grants
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 76 — 

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 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 77 — 

Table 9.—Number of third- and fourth-year students with Pell Grants, number with SMART Grants, 

Table 9.—percentage of Pell Grant recipients who also received a SMART Grant, and percentage of all 

Table 9.—bachelor’s degrees awarded in SMART Grant-eligible fields, by state of institution attended: 

Table 9.—2006–07 

Number of third- Number of Percent of third- Percent of

 and fourth-year Pell Grant and fourth-year bachelor’s degrees

State of students recipients with Pell Grant recipients awarded in SMART

institution attended with Pell Grants SMART Grants with SMART Grants Grant-eligible fields

 Total 1,208,054 62,371 5.2 15.8

Utah 24,060 3,392 14.1 17.0 *

Idaho 11,681 1,075 9.2 15.2

Washington 18,327 1,541 8.4 16.2 *

Oregon 14,708 1,088 7.4 16.9 *

New Hampshire 2,642 194 7.3 13.7

Massachusetts 18,614 1,328 7.1 16.1 *

North Dakota 4,332 309 7.1 15.7

Montana 5,476 381 7.0 20.0 *

Colorado 19,543 1,317 6.7 20.9 *

South Dakota 5,463 333 6.1 21.1 *

Pennsylvania 45,723 2,758 6.0 17.2 *

Minnesota 17,631 1,050 6.0 15.6

Wisconsin 19,175 1,120 5.8 16.4 *

California 127,465 6,854 5.4 17.4 *

Wyoming 1,481 79 5.3 23.0 *

Illinois 49,754 2,635 5.3 16.1 *

Vermont 2,668 141 5.3 13.5

Arizona 44,073 2,328 5.3 16.6 *

Nevada 3,989 201 5.0 12.6

Florida 51,095 2,539 5.0 12.9

Michigan 40,640 1,997 4.9 17.4 *

Oklahoma 19,152 940 4.9 14.7

Kansas 14,051 683 4.9 14.6

Connecticut 5,933 286 4.8 11.8

West Virginia 9,788 467 4.8 13.8

Indiana 24,477 1,158 4.7 16.2 *

New York 86,421 4,040 4.7 14.1

New Mexico 10,473 486 4.6 16.6 *

Hawaii 3,946 182 4.6 13.5

Missouri 25,180 1,130 4.5 14.4

Georgia 33,975 1,521 4.5 17.1 *

Virginia 21,317 952 4.5 16.1 *

South Carolina 15,654 696 4.4 15.1

Nebraska 7,768 345 4.4 13.2

Kentucky 18,065 795 4.4 12.5

Alabama 22,082 971 4.4 15.9 *

Maryland 12,945 564 4.4 20.8 *

Ohio 41,952 1,820 4.3 14.1

Iowa 18,735 809 4.3 14.6

Tennessee 23,717 1,016 4.3 12.9

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.
CHAPTER 4. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PARTICIPATION IN 2006–07 

— 78 — 

Table 9.—Number of third- and fourth-year students with Pell Grants, number with SMART Grants, 

Table 9.—percentage of Pell Grant recipients who also received a SMART Grant, and percentage of all 

Table 9.—bachelor’s degrees awarded in SMART Grant-eligible fields, by state of institution attended: 

Table 9.—2006–07—Continued 

Number of third- Number of Percent of third- Percent of

 and fourth-year Pell Grant and fourth-year bachelor’s degrees

State of students recipients with Pell Grant recipients awarded in SMART

institution attended with Pell Grants SMART Grants with SMART Grants Grant-eligible fields

Louisiana 21,729 916 4.2 16.8 *

Maine 5,480 227 4.1 16.6 *

North Carolina 31,939 1,307 4.1 16.8 *

New Jersey 20,321 785 3.9 15.9 *

Alaska 1,636 60 3.7 20.0 *

Texas 80,803 2,933 3.6 15.1

Rhode Island 4,773 172 3.6 13.5

Arkansas 13,850 480 3.5 13.4

Mississippi 17,707 538 3.0 15.1

Delaware 1,826 53 2.9 12.2

District of Columbia 6,360 122 1.9 16.4 *

Puerto Rico 56,978 3,254 5.7

Guam 481 3 0.6

* Indicates higher than total percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded in SMART Grant-eligible fields.

NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2006–07. Class 

level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants but student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class 

levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions and greater than 5 at four-year institutions were excluded from the numbers 

presented by class level but included in the totals.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept, 21, 2007).
— 79 —

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.45 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 income46), while 

ELS provides the opportunity to examine course-taking by family income (but not over time). 

 

45 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. 

46 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. 
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 80 — 

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.47

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.48 

 

47 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Studies, 2000 and 

2005. Not shown in table. 

48 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. 
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 81 — 

Figure 29.—Percentage of all high school graduates completing a rigorous high school program in various 

Figure 29.—subject areas: 1990, 2000, and 2005

a

 Including algebra I and a higher-level course.

b

 Including at least two courses from biology, chemistry, or physics.

c

 Algebra I, algebra II, and geometry. d

 Biology, chemistry, and physics.

e

 U.S. and world history, world geography, economics, and government.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Studies, 1990, 

2000, and 2005. 

85

62

45

86

70

32

88

80

61

95

81

48

89 85

66

95

84

54

0

20

40

60

80

100

English

(three years)

Mathematics

(three years)

Science

(three years)

Social

studies

(three years)

Language

other than

English

(one year)

All course 

requirements

85

44

29

19

53

4

88

64

41

31

67

11

89

66

43 41

70

15

0

20

40

60

80

100

English

(four years)

Mathematics

(three years)

Science

(three years)

Social

studies

(three and

a half years)

Language

other than

English

(two years)

All course

requirements

1990 2000 2005

c

Percent

Percent

ED course-based rigorous curriculum

State Scholars Initiative course work

d

e

a b
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 82 — 

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.49

Among all high school graduates, low-income graduates (those from families with annual 

incomes of $50,00050 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. 

Figure 30.—Percentage of high school graduates completing the ED course-based curriculum, by family 

Figure 30.—income: 2004 

a Including algebra I and a higher-level course.

b

 At least two courses from biology, chemistry, or physics.

c

 $50,000 or less annual family income in 2001.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 

(ELS:2002/2004), “First Follow-up, High School Transcript Study, 2004.”

81

74

53

91

75

36

80

84

70

93

88

51

0

20

40

60

80

100

English

(four years)

Mathematics

(three years)

Science

(three years)

Social

studies

(three years)

Language

other than

English

(one year)

All course 

requirements

Low income All others c

Percent

a

b

 

49 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). 

50 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. 
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 83 — 

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. Lowincome 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.51 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. 

 

51 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. 
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 84 — 

Figure 31.—Among 2004 high school graduates who enrolled in college full-time within a year of high 

Figure 31.—school graduation, percentage who had completed a rigorous high school program, by family 

Figure 31.—income

a

 Including algebra I and a higher-level course.

b

 At least two courses from biology, chemistry, or physics.

c

 Algebra I, algebra II, and geometry d

 Biology, chemistry, and physics.

e

 U.S. and world history, world geography, economics, and government.

f

 $50,000 or less annual family income in 2001.

NOTE: Limited to high school graduates who entered postsecondary education within one year after completing high 

school and enrolled in a degree program full-time. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 

(ELS:2002/2004), “First Follow-up, High School Transcript Study, 2004.”

84 88

73

93 92

54

81

92

82

94 96

62

0

20

40

60

80

100

English

(four years)

Mathematics

(three years)

Science

(three years)

Social

studies

(three years)

Language

other than

English

(one year)

All course

requirements

84

64

49

43

77

13

81

66 63

41

86

17

0

20

40

60

80

100

English

(four years)

Mathematics

(three years)

Science

(three years)

Social studies

(three and

a half years)

Language

other than

English

(two years)

All course 

requirements

Low income All others

Percent

Percent

ED course-based curriculum

State Scholars Initiative course work

a b

c d

e

f
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 85 — 

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 2003–04.52 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 

 

52 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. 
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 86 — 

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.53 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.54 In other words, if lowincome 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) 

 

53 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. 

54 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. 
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 87 — 

because the number of high school graduates enrolling in college right after high school also 

increased. 

Table 10.—Beginning postsecondary students who met various ACG requirements: 1995–96 and 2003–04 

Beginning postsecondary students who were

recent high school graduates in degree programsa 1995–96 2003–04

 Total number 1,656,200 2,129,800

Percent who:

 Were U.S. citizens 94.7 96.0

 Received Pell Grants 22.8 29.2

 Enrolled full-time 78.8 83.6

 Completed the ED course-based high school curriculumb 48.5 60.0

Percent who:

Were U.S. citizens 94.7 96.0

And received Pell Grants 20.4 27.5

And attended full-time 17.7 24.4

And completed the ED course-based curriculum 7.5 13.3

Number of potential ACG recipients 123,500 282,300

a Excluded from this table are beginning postsecondary students who graduated from high school before January 1995 or 

January 2003 or who were in certificate or unknown programs.

b Refers to a high school curriculum that includes at least four years of English, three years each of mathematics, science, 

and social studies, and one year of a language other than English. The levels of these courses are unknown. This 

definition corresponds as closely as possible to the requirements under the ED course-based high school program, but 

because it does not take into account the level of the courses, these percentages will be overestimates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 and 2003/04 Beginning 

Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Studies (BPS:96/01 and BPS:03/04).

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). 
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 88 — 

Figure 32.—Among first-year students in degree programs who were recent high school graduates, 

Figure 32.—percentage who would have met ACG requirements: 1995–96 and 2003–04

* Refers to a high school curriculum that includes at least four years of English, three years each of mathematics, science, 

and social studies, and one year of a language other than English. The levels of these courses are unknown. This definition 

corresponds as closely as possible to the requirements under the ED course-based high school program, but because it 

does not take into account the level of the courses, these percentages will be overestimates.

NOTE: Excluded from this table are beginning postsecondary students who graduated from high school before January 

1995 or January 2003, respectively, or who were in certificate or unknown programs.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 and 2003/04 Beginning 

Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Studies (BPS:96/01 and BPS:03/04).

95

20 18

7

96

28 24

13

0

20

40

60

80

100

U.S. citizens and Pell Grant recipients and attended

full-time

and had completed

a rigorous high

school program

1995–96 2003–04

*

Percent

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.55 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. 

 

55 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). 
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 89 — 

Table 11.—Number of beginning postsecondary students in degree programs who were recent high school 

Table 11.—graduates, number of those who were Pell Grant recipients, and number and percentage who 

Table 11.—would have been eligible for ACGs, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 2003–04

Percent of

Number of Percent of Pell Grant

 recent high Number Number total who recipients

 school grad- who were who would would who would

uates in degree Pell Grant have been have been have been

Characteristic programsa recipients ACG-eligibleb ACG-eligibleb ACG-eligibleb

 Total 2,129,800 622,400 282,300 13.3 45.4

Gender

Male 959,800 260,800 112,900 11.8 43.3

Female 1,170,000 361,600 169,400 14.5 46.8

Race/ethnicity

White 1,431,400 294,000 153,100 10.7 52.1

Black 226,400 131,300 57,600 25.4 43.9

Hispanic 251,200 124,400 40,400 16.1 32.5

Asian/Pacific Islander 120,500 42,000 18,800 15.6 44.7

Other (including 

 multiracial) 100,200 30,700 12,300 12.3 40.0

Family income (in 2002)

Less than $50,000 903,300 581,700 261,100 28.9 44.9

$50,000 or higher 1,226,500 40,700 21,200 1.7 52.0

Expected family contribution

Zero 321,300 235,700 94,000 29.3 39.9

Less than $2,000 284,000 222,600 104,600 36.8 47.0

$2,000–3,999 229,800 164,100 83,800 36.5 51.1

$4,000 or higher 1,294,700 # # # #

Type of institution

Public four-year 864,900 226,400 134,000 15.5 59.2

Private not-for-profit

 four-year 445,000 121,700 72,400 16.3 59.5

Public two-year 707,300 196,300 57,400 8.1 29.2

Private for-profit 97,800 68,300 14,800 15.1 21.7

Other 14,800 9,600 3,700 25.0 38.6

Selectivity of institution

Very selective 377,000 75,200 48,300 12.8 64.2

Moderately selective 739,100 200,500 126,500 17.1 63.1

Minimally selective 135,200 49,800 23,000 17.0 46.2

Open admission 58,600 22,600 8,600 14.7 38.1

Selectivity unclassified 819,800 274,300 76,000 9.3 27.7

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 90 — 

Table 11.—Number of beginning postsecondary students in degree programs who were recent high school 

Table 11.—graduates, number of those who were Pell Grant recipients, and number and percentage who 

Table 11.—would have been eligible for ACGs, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 2003–04

Table 11.——Continued

Percent of

Number of Percent of Pell Grant

 recent high Number Number total who recipients

 school grad- who were who would would who would

uates in degree Pell Grant have been have been have been

Characteristic programsa recipients ACG-eligibleb ACG-eligibleb ACG-eligibleb

Carnegie classification of institution

Doctoral 588,200 123,800 81,200 13.8 65.6

Master’s 480,600 141,900 85,300 17.7 60.1

Baccalaureate 225,300 82,500 36,700 16.3 44.5

Associate’s 757,500 237,100 66,300 8.8 28.0

Specialized 73,800 35,900 11,800 16.0 32.9

Other 4,300 1,300 1,200 27.6 91.5

# Rounds to zero.

a Graduated from high school in Jan. 2003 or later and enrolled in an associate or bachelor’s degree program in 

2003–04.

b

 Students who were U.S. citizens, received Pell Grants, enrolled full-time, and completed a rigorous high school curriculum,

defined as at least four years of English, three years each of mathematics, science, and social science, and one year of a 

language other than English. Details on the content of these courses are not available. This definition corresponds as 

closely as possible to the requirements under the ED course-based high school program, but because it does not take into 

account the level of the courses, these numbers will be overestimates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003/04 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Studies (BPS:03/04).
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 91 — 

Figure 33.—Of recent high school graduates enrolled in degree programs, percentage with selected student

Figure 33.—and institutional characteristics: 2003–04

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 and 2003/04 Beginning 

Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Studies (BPS:96/01 and BPS:03/04).

18

35

6 3

38

12

32

8 4

44

17

45

8 3

27

0

20

40

60

80

100

Very

selective

Moderately

selective

Minimally

selective

Open

admission

Selectivity

unclassified

All students All Pell Grant recipients ACG-eligible Pell Grant recipients

67

11 12 6

47

21 20

7

54

20 14 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

White Black Hispanic Asian/

Pacific

Islander

55 58 60

0

20

40

60

80

100

Female

Race/ethnicity

41

21

33

5

36

20

32

11

47

26 20

5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Public

four-year

Private 

not-forprofit

four-year

Public

two-year

Private

for-profit

Type of institution Selectivity of institution

Percent

Percent Percent

Percent

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 
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 92 — 

Table 12.—Number of third-year and above undergraduates in bachelor’s degree programs, number who 

Table 12.—were Pell Grant recipients, and number and percentage who would have been eligible for 

Table 12.—SMART Grants, by selected student and institutional characteristics: 2003–04 

Percent of

Number of third- Percent of Pell Grant

 year and above Number Number who total who recipients

undergraduates who were would have would have who would have

in bachelor’s Pell Grant been SMART been SMART been SMART

Characteristic degree programs recipients Grant-eligible* Grant-eligible* Grant-eligible*

 Total 5,313,200 1,385,200 80,600 1.5 5.8

Gender

Male 2,373,800 565,800 49,500 2.1 8.7

Female 2,939,400 819,400 30,900 1.1 3.8

Race/ethnicity

White 3,662,400 759,400 48,700 1.3 6.4

Black 601,200 258,800 8,700 1.4 3.4

Hispanic 508,500 215,900 9,900 1.9 4.6

Asian/Pacific Islander 320,700 82,900 8,500 2.6 10.2

American Indian/

 Alaska Native/Other 220,300 68,200 4,800 2.2 7.0

Family income (in 2002)

Less than $50,000 2,840,300 1,342,200 76,800 2.7 5.7

$50,000 or higher 2,472,900 43,000 3,800 0.2 8.9

Expected family contribution

Zero 831,800 565,000 33,500 4.0 5.9

Less than $2,000 783,200 509,300 23,700 3.0 4.7

$2,000–3,999 568,500 310,900 23,400 4.1 7.5

$4,000 or higher 3,129,600 # # # #

Type of institution

Public four-year 3,261,200 846,300 47,300 1.5 5.6

Private not-for-profit

 four-year 1,340,800 356,400 21,600 1.6 6.1

Other four-year 711,100 182,600 11,700 1.6 6.4

Carnegie classification

Doctoral 2,183,000 492,200 35,200 1.6 7.2

Master’s 2,151,600 580,600 22,900 1.1 4.0

Bachelor’s 671,700 229,200 16,600 2.5 7.3

Associate 79,600 14,000 ‡ ‡ ‡

Specialized 226,400 68,500 5,000 2.2 7.4

# Rounds to zero.

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases for a reliable estimate).

* SMART Grant-eligible majors are based on 46 aggregated field of study categories; actual CIP codes were not available.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:04).
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 93 — 

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).56 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. 

Figure 34.—Percentage of third-year and above undergraduates meeting SMART Grant Eligibility 

Figure 34.—requirements: 1999–2000 and 2003–04

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Studies (NPSAS:2000 and NPSAS:04).

94

22

17

8

2

94

24

18

9

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

U.S. citizens and Pell

Grant

recipients

and attended

full-time

and had

a GPA of

3.0 or above

and were

majoring

in a SMARTGrant

1999–2000 2003–04 eligible major

Percent

 

56 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000). Not shown in table. 
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 94 — 

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 13.—Number and percentage of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in SMART Grant-eligible majors: 

Table 13.—1995–96, 2000–01, and 2005–06

Number of Percent of

Number of bachelor’s all bachelor’s

bachelor’s degrees degrees

degrees awarded in that were in

awarded in SMART Grant- SMART GrantAcademic year all majors eligible majors* eligible majors*

1995–96 1,127,400 174,300 15.5

2000–01 1,256,300 187,100 14.9

2005–06 1,512,400 238,600 15.8

*Includes mathematics, science, technology, engineering, and certain critical languages. See Appendix A for a complete

list of qualifying majors.

NOTE: Excludes degrees awarded to nonresident alien (international) students.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS), 1995–96, 2000–01, and 2005–06.

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). 
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 95 — 

Table 14.—Number and percentage of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in SMART Grant-eligible majors 

Table 14.—and percentage distribution by state: 1995–96, 2000–01, and 2005–06

Percentage

distribution

 by state

State 1995–96 2000–01 2005–06 1995–96 2000–01 2005–06 2005–06

 Total 174,300 187,100 238,600 15.5 14.9 15.8 100.0

California 18,100 19,400 26,300 17.1 15.9 17.4 11.0

New York 12,900 13,900 15,700 13.9 14.5 14.1 6.6

Pennsylvania 10,400 11,000 14,200 17.2 16.1 17.2 6.0

Texas 9,700 10,500 13,800 14.1 13.6 15.1 5.8

Illinois 7,600 8,200 11,200 15.0 14.7 16.1 4.7

Michigan 7,600 7,700 9,200 17.7 16.4 17.4 3.8

Florida 5,500 6,300 9,000 12.4 12.0 12.9 3.8

Ohio 7,200 7,300 8,600 15.2 13.8 14.1 3.6

Massachusetts 6,700 6,700 7,900 17.4 15.4 16.1 3.3

North Carolina 5,600 6,000 7,200 17.2 16.2 16.8 3.0

Virginia 5,500 5,900 6,500 17.8 17.5 16.1 2.7

Indiana 5,300 5,500 6,400 17.8 16.7 16.2 2.7

Georgia 4,400 4,500 6,200 16.4 15.7 17.1 2.6

Colorado 3,900 4,000 5,900 19.6 18.0 20.9 2.5

Wisconsin 3,500 4,200 5,800 13.4 13.7 16.4 2.4

Maryland 3,700 4,100 5,500 18.1 18.3 20.8 2.3

Arizona 2,500 2,700 5,200 15.0 13.4 16.6 2.2

Missouri 3,800 4,500 5,100 14.3 14.4 14.4 2.2

New Jersey 3,700 4,400 5,100 15.5 16.3 15.9 2.1

Minnesota 3,200 3,600 4,800 13.9 14.5 15.6 2.0

Washington 3,100 3,500 4,700 14.5 14.9 16.2 2.0

Alabama 3,200 3,200 3,600 16.2 15.2 15.9 1.5

Tennessee 3,000 2,900 3,500 14.7 12.3 12.9 1.5

Iowa 2,400 2,700 3,500 14.2 13.3 14.6 1.5

Utah 2,400 2,600 3,400 16.1 15.2 17.0 1.4

Louisiana 2,600 3,000 3,300 14.9 15.0 16.8 1.4

Oregon 2,000 2,200 3,100 15.9 16.0 16.9 1.3

South Carolina 2,400 2,500 3,100 16.4 15.1 15.1 1.3

Oklahoma 1,800 1,900 2,700 13.5 13.1 14.7 1.1

Kansas 2,100 2,300 2,500 14.8 15.8 14.6 1.1

Kentucky 2,100 2,000 2,400 14.4 12.3 12.5 1.0

Connecticut 1,700 1,700 2,200 12.8 11.5 11.8 0.9

District of Columbia 900 1,700 1,800 13.9 20.7 16.4 0.8

Mississippi 1,400 1,500 1,800 14.7 13.4 15.1 0.7

Nebraska 1,200 1,400 1,700 12.7 12.5 13.2 0.7

Arkansas 1,100 1,200 1,500 12.9 12.8 13.4 0.6

West Virginia 1,200 1,100 1,400 13.8 13.3 13.8 0.6

Rhode Island 1,000 1,100 1,300 11.6 12.5 13.5 0.6

New Mexico 1,000 1,000 1,300 15.8 15.1 16.6 0.5

South Dakota 700 700 1,200 16.6 16.0 21.1 0.5

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.

 bachelor’s degrees

Percentage of all 

Total number
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 96 — 

Table 14.—Number and percentage of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in SMART Grant-eligible majors 

Table 14.—and percentage distribution by state: 1995–96, 2000–01, and 2005–06—Continued

Percentage

distribution

 by state

State 1995–96 2000–01 2005–06 1995–96 2000–01 2005–06 2005–06

Idaho 700 700 1,200 14.8 15.7 15.2 0.5

New Hampshire 1,000 900 1,100 14.1 12.6 13.7 0.5

Maine 800 900 1,100 15.3 15.6 16.6 0.5

Montana 800 900 1,000 17.0 16.2 20.0 0.4

North Dakota 700 700 900 15.4 14.3 15.7 0.4

Nevada 400 500 800 12.7 11.0 12.6 0.3

Hawaii 500 500 700 12.7 10.7 13.5 0.3

Vermont 500 500 700 10.4 10.3 13.5 0.3

Delaware 600 500 700 13.1 12.3 12.2 0.3

Wyoming 300 300 400 18.0 17.0 23.0 0.2

Alaska 200 200 300 16.8 17.1 20.0 0.1

NOTE: Excludes degrees awarded to nonresident alien (international) students. Detail may not sum to totals because of 

rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education

Data System (IPEDS), 1995–96, 2000–01, and 2005–06.

Percentage of all 

Total number bachelor’s degrees

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. 

Table 15.—Number and percentage of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in SMART Grant-eligible majors 

Table 15.—and percentage distribution by type of institution: 1995–96, 2000–01, and 2005–06

Percentage

distribution

by type of

institution

Type of institution 1995–96 2000–01 2005–06 1995–96 2000–01 2005–06 2005–06

 Total 174,300 187,100 238,500 15.5 14.9 15.8 100.0

Sector of institution

Public four-year 117,600 122,900 160,100 15.6 15.1 16.6 67.1

Private not-for-profit four-year 53,400 58,500 65,000 14.6 13.9 13.3 27.3

Private for-profit four-year 3,400 5,600 13,500 33.9 25.2 23.0 5.6

NOTE: Excludes degrees awarded to nonresident alien (international) students. Detail may not sum to totals because of 

rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS), 1995–96, 2000–01, and 2005–06.

Total number

Percentage of all 

 bachelor’s degrees
CHAPTER 5. BASELINE INFORMATION

— 97 — 

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). 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
— 99 —

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.57

Increasing the Number of Eligible Students 

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

organizations to 

 

57 The complete document is available at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/smart/results2007/national.pdf. 
CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND 

STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS

— 100 — 

(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. 
CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND 

STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS

— 101 — 

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. 
CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND 

STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS

— 102 — 

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 
CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND 

STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS

— 103 — 

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. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
— 105 —

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. 
REFERENCES

— 106 — 

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): 624659. 

———. 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.
REFERENCES

— 107 — 

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. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
— 109 —

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.58

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 

 

58 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. 
APPENDIX A. LIST OF NATIONAL SMART GRANT-ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

— 110 —

Computer Science 

11.01 Computer and Information Sciences, General 

11.0101 Computer and Information Sciences, 

General 

11.0102 Artificial Intelligence and Robotics 

11.0103 Information Technology 

11.0199 Computer and Information Sciences, Other 

11.02 Computer Programming 

11.0201 Computer Programming/Programmer, 

General 

11.0202 Computer Programming, Specific 

Applications 

11.0203 Computer Programming, Vendor/Product 

Certification 

11.0299 Computer Programming, Other 

11.03 Data Processing 

11.0301 Data Processing and Data Processing 

Technology/Technician 

11.04 Information Science/Studies 

11.0401 Information Science/Studies 

11.05 Computer Systems Analysis 

11.0501 Computer Systems Analysis/Analyst 

11.07 Computer Science 

11.0701 Computer Science 

11.08 Computer Software and Media Applications 

11.0801 Web Page, Digital/Multimedia and 

Information Resources Design 

11.0802 Data Modeling/Warehousing and Database 

Administration 

11.0803 Computer Graphics 

11.0899 Computer Software and Media Applications, 

Other 

11.09 Computer Systems Networking and Telecommunications 

11.0901 Computer Systems Networking and 

Telecommunications 

11.10 Computer/Information Technology Administration and 

Management 

11.1001 System Administration/Administrator 

11.1002 System, Networking, and LAN/WAN 

Management/Manager 

11.1003 Computer and Information Systems Security 

11.1004 Web/Multimedia Management and Webmaster 

11.1099 Computer/Information Technology Services 

Administration and Management, Other 

11.99 Computer and Information Sciences and Support 

Services, Other 

11.9999 Computer and Information Sciences and 

Support Services, Other 

Engineering 

14.01 Engineering, General 

14.0101 Engineering, General 

14.02 Aerospace, Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering 

14.0201 Aerospace, Aeronautical and Astronautical 

Engineering 

14.03 Agricultural/Biological Engineering and Bioengineering 

14.0301 Agricultural/Biological Engineering and 

Bioengineering 

14.04 Architectural Engineering 

14.0401 Architectural Engineering 

14.05 Biomedical/Medical Engineering 

14.0501 Biomedical/Medical Engineering 

14.06 Ceramic Sciences and Engineering 

14.0601 Ceramic Sciences and Engineering 

14.07 Chemical Engineering 

14.0701 Chemical Engineering 

14.08 Civil Engineering 

14.0801 Civil Engineering, General 

14.0802 Geotechnical Engineering 

14.0803 Structural Engineering 

14.0804 Transportation and Highway Engineering 

14.0805 Water Resources Engineering 

14.0899 Civil Engineering, Other 

14.09 Computer Engineering, General 

14.0901 Computer Engineering, General 

14.0902 Computer Hardware Engineering 

14.0903 Computer Software Engineering 

14.0999 Computer Engineering, Other 

14.10 Electrical, Electronics and Communications 

Engineering 

14.1001 Electrical, Electronics and Communications 

Engineering 

14.11 Engineering Mechanics 

14.1101 Engineering Mechanics 

14.12 Engineering Physics 

14.1201 Engineering Physics 

14.13 Engineering Science 

14.1301 Engineering Science 

14.14 Environmental/Environmental Health Engineering 

14.1401 Environmental/Environmental Health 

Engineering 

14.18 Materials Engineering 

14.1801 Materials Engineering 

14.19 Mechanical Engineering 

14.1901 Mechanical Engineering 
APPENDIX A. LIST OF NATIONAL SMART GRANT-ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

— 111 —

14.20 Metallurgical Engineering 

14.2001 Metallurgical Engineering 

14.21 Mining and Mineral Engineering 

14.2101 Mining and Mineral Engineering 

14.22 Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 

14.2201 Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 

14.23 Nuclear Engineering 

14.2301 Nuclear Engineering 

14.24 Ocean Engineering 

14.2401 Ocean Engineering 

14.25 Petroleum Engineering 

14.2501 Petroleum Engineering 

14.27 Systems Engineering 

14.2701 Systems Engineering 

14.28 Textile Sciences and Engineering 

14.2801 Textile Sciences and Engineering 

14.31 Materials Science 

14.3101 Materials Science 

14.32 Polymer/Plastics Engineering 

14.3201 Polymer/Plastics Engineering 

14.33 Construction Engineering 

14.3301 Construction Engineering 

14.34 Forest Engineering 

14.3401 Forest Engineering 

14.35 Industrial Engineering 

14.3501 Industrial Engineering 

14.36 Manufacturing Engineering 

14.3601 Manufacturing Engineering 

14.37 Operations Research 

14.3701 Operations Research 

14.38 Surveying Engineering 

14.3801 Surveying Engineering 

14.39 Geological/Geophysical Engineering 

14.3901 Geological/Geophysical Engineering 

14.99 Engineering, Other 

14.9999 Engineering, Other 

Critical Foreign Language 

16.0201 African Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics 

16.0301 Chinese Language and Literature 

16.0302 Japanese Language and Literature 

16.0303 Korean Language and Literature 

16.0402 Russian Language and Literature 

16.0701 Hindi Language and Literature 

16.0704 Bengali Language and Literature 

16.0705 Panjabi Language and Literature 

16.0707 Urdu Language and Literature 

16.0801 Iranian/Persian Languages, Literatures, and 

Linguistics 

16.0904 Portuguese Language and Literature 

16.1101 Arabic Language and Literature 

16.1102 Hebrew Language and Literature 

16.1402 Bahasa Indonesian/Bahasa Malay 

Languages and Literatures 

16.1404 Filipino/Tagalog Language and Literature 

16.1501 Turkish Language and Literature 

16.1599 Turkic, Ural-Altaic, Caucasian, and Central 

Asian Languages, Literatures, and 

Linguistics, Other 

Life Sciences 

26. BIOLOGICAL AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES 

26.01 Biology, General 

26.0101 Biology/Biological Sciences, General 

26.0102 Biomedical Sciences, General 

26.02 Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology 

26.0202 Biochemistry 

26.0203 Biophysics 

26.0204 Molecular Biology 

26.0205 Molecular Biochemistry 

26.0206 Molecular Biophysics 

26.0207 Structural Biology 

26.0208 Photobiology 

26.0209 Radiation Biology/Radiobiology 

26.0210 Biochemistry/Biophysics and Molecular 

Biology 

26.0299 Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular 

Biology, Other 

26.03 Botany/Plant Biology 

26.0301 Botany/Plant Biology 

26.0305 Plant Pathology/Phytopathology 

26.0307 Plant Physiology 

26.0308 Plant Molecular Biology 

26.0399 Botany/Plant Biology, Other 

26.04 Cell/Cellular Biology and Anatomical Sciences 

26.0401 Cell/Cellular Biology and Histology 

26.0403 Anatomy 

26.0404 Developmental Biology and Embryology 

26.0405 Neuroanatomy 

26.0406 Cell/Cellular and Molecular Biology 

26.0407 Cell Biology and Anatomy 
APPENDIX A. LIST OF NATIONAL SMART GRANT-ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

— 112 —

26.0499 Cell/Cellular Biology and Anatomical 

Sciences, Other 

26.05 Microbiological Sciences and Immunology 

26.0502 Microbiology, General 

26.0503 Medical Microbiology and Bacteriology 

26.0504 Virology 

26.0505 Parasitology 

26.0506 Mycology 

26.0507 Immunology 

26.0599 Microbiological Sciences and Immunology, 

Other 

26.07 Zoology/Animal Biology 

26.0701 Zoology/Animal Biology 

26.0702 Entomology 

26.0707 Animal Physiology 

26.0708 Animal Behavior and Ethology 

26.0709 Wildlife Biology 

26.0799 Zoology/Animal Biology, Other 

26.08 Genetics 

26.0801 Genetics, General 

26.0802 Molecular Genetics 

26.0803 Microbial and Eukaryotic Genetics 

26.0804 Animal Genetics 

26.0805 Plant Genetics 

26.0806 Human/Medical Genetics 

26.0899 Genetics, Other 

26.09 Physiology, Pathology and Related Sciences 

26.0901 Physiology, General 

26.0902 Molecular Physiology 

26.0903 Cell Physiology 

26.0904 Endocrinology 

26.0905 Reproductive Biology 

26.0906 Neurobiology and Neurophysiology 

26.0907 Cardiovascular Science 

26.0908 Exercise Physiology 8/25/2006 

26.0909 Vision Science/Physiological Optics 

26.0910 Pathology/Experimental Pathology 

26.0911 Oncology and Cancer Biology 

26.0999 Physiology, Pathology, and Related 

Sciences, Other 

26.10 Pharmacology and Toxicology 

26.1001 Pharmacology 

26.1002 Molecular Pharmacology 

26.1003 Neuropharmacology 

26.1004 Toxicology 

26.1005 Molecular Toxicology 

26.1006 Environmental Toxicology 

26.1007 Pharmacology and Toxicology 

26.1099 Pharmacology and Toxicology, Other 

26.11 Biomathematics and Bioinformatics 

26.1101 Biometry/Biometrics 

26.1102 Biostatistics 

26.1103 Bioinformatics 

26.1199 Biomathematics and Bioinformatics, Other 

26.12 Biotechnology 

26.1201 Biotechnology 

26.13 Ecology, Evolution, Systematics and Population Biology 

26.1301 Ecology 

26.1302 Marine Biology and Biological Oceanography 

26.1303 Evolutionary Biology 8/25/2006 

26.1304 Aquatic Biology/Limnology 

26.1305 Environmental Biology 

26.1306 Population Biology 

26.1307 Conservation Biology 

26.1308 Systematic Biology/Biological Systematics 

26.1309 Epidemiology 

26.1399 Ecology, Evolution, Systematics and 

Population Biology, Other 

26.99 Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Other 

26.9999 Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Other 

01. AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS, AND 

RELATED SCIENCES 

01.09 Animal Sciences 

01.0901 Animal Sciences, General 

01.0902 Agricultural Animal Breeding 

01.0903 Animal Health 

01.0904 Animal Nutrition 

01.0905 Dairy Science 

01.0906 Livestock Management 

01.0907 Poultry Science 

01.0999 Animal Sciences, Other 

01.11 Plant Sciences 

01.1101 Plant Sciences, General 

01.1102 Agronomy and Crop Science 

01.1103 Horticultural Science 

01.1104 Agricultural and Horticultural Plant Breeding 

01.1105 Plant Protection and Integrated Pest 

Management 

01.1106 Range Science and Management 

01.1199 Plant Sciences, Other 

01.12 Soil Sciences 

01.1201 Soil Science and Agronomy, General 

01.1202 Soil Chemistry and Physics 

01.1203 Soil Microbiology 

01.1299 Soil Sciences, Other
APPENDIX A. LIST OF NATIONAL SMART GRANT-ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

— 113 —

Mathematics 

27.01 Mathematics 

27.0101 Mathematics, General 

27.0102 Algebra and Number Theory 

27.0103 Analysis and Functional Analysis 

27.0104 Geometry/Geometric Analysis 

27.0105 Topology and Foundations 

27.0199 Mathematics, Other 

27.03 Applied Mathematics 

27.0301 Applied Mathematics 

27.0303 Computational Mathematics 

27.0399 Applied Mathematics, Other 

27.05 Statistics 

27.0501 Statistics, General 

27.0502 Mathematical Statistics and Probability 

27.0599 Statistics, Other 

27.99 Mathematics and Statistics, Other 

27.9999 Mathematics and Statistics, Other 

Physical Sciences 

40.01 Physical Sciences 

40.0101 Physical Sciences 

40.02 Astronomy and Astrophysics 

40.0201 Astronomy 

40.0202 Astrophysics 

40.0203 Planetary Astronomy and Science 

40.0299 Astronomy and Astrophysics, Other 

40.04 Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology 

40.0401 Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology, 

General 

40.0402 Atmospheric Chemistry and Climatology 

40.0403 Atmospheric Physics and Dynamics 

40.0404 Meteorology 

40.0499 Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology, Other 

40.05 Chemistry 

40.0501 Chemistry, General 

40.0502 Analytical Chemistry 

40.0503 Inorganic Chemistry 

40.0504 Organic Chemistry 

40.0506 Physical and Theoretical Chemistry 

40.0507 Polymer Chemistry 

40.0508 Chemical Physics 

40.0599 Chemistry, Other 

40.06 Geological and Earth Sciences/Geosciences 

40.0601 Geology/Earth Science, General 

40.0602 Geochemistry 

40.0603 Geophysics and Seismology 

40.0604 Paleontology 

40.0605 Hydrology and Water Resources Science 

40.0606 Geochemistry and Petrology 

40.0607 Oceanography, Chemical and Physical 

40.0699 Geological and Earth Sciences/Geosciences, 

Other 

40.08 Physics 

40.0801 Physics, General 

40.0802 Atomic/Molecular Physics 

40.0804 Elementary Particle Physics 

40.0805 Plasma and High-Temperature Physics 

40.0806 Nuclear Physics 

40.0807 Optics/Optical Sciences 

40.0808 Solid State and Low-Temperature Physics 

40.0809 Acoustics 

40.0810 Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 

40.0899 Physics, Other 

40.99 Physical Sciences, Other 

40.9999 Physical Sciences, Other 

Technology 

15. ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES/TECHNICIANS 

15.00 Engineering Technology, General 

15.0000 Engineering Technology, General 

15.01 Architectural Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.0101 Architectural Engineering 

Technology/Technician 

15.02 Civil Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.0201 Civil Engineering Technology/Technician 

15.03 Electrical Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.0303 Electrical, Electronic and Communications 

Engineering Technology/Technician 

15.0304 Laser and Optical Technology/Technician 

15.0305 Telecommunications Technology/Technician 

15.0399 Electrical and Electronic Engineering 

Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.04 Electromechanical Instrumentation and Maintenance 

Technologies/Technicians 

15.0401 Biomedical Technology/Technician 

15.0403 Electromechanical Technology/ 

Electromechanical Engineering Technology 

15.0404 Instrumentation Technology/Technician 

15.0405 Robotics Technology/Technician 
APPENDIX A. LIST OF NATIONAL SMART GRANT-ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

— 114 —

15.0499 Electromechanical and Instrumentation and 

Maintenance Technologies/Technicians, 

Other 

15.05 Environmental Control Technologies/Technicians 

15.0503 Energy Management and Systems 

Technology/Technician 

15.0505 Solar Energy Technology/Technician 

15.0506 Water Quality and Wastewater Treatment 

Management and Recycling 

Technology/Technician 

15.0507 Environmental Engineering Technology/ 

Environmental Technology 

15.0508 Hazardous Materials Management and 

Waste Technology/Technician 

15.0599 Environmental Control 

Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.06 Industrial Production Technologies/Technicians 

15.0607 Plastics Engineering Technology/Technician 

15.0611 Metallurgical Technology/Technician 

15.0612 Industrial Technology/Technician 

15.0613 Manufacturing Technology/Technician 

15.0699 Industrial Production 

Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.07 Quality Control and Safety Technologies/Technicians 

15.0701 Occupational Safety and Health 

Technology/Technician 

15.0702 Quality Control Technology/Technician 

15.0703 Industrial Safety Technology/Technician 

15.0704 Hazardous Materials Information Systems 

Technology/Technician 

15.0799 Quality Control and Safety Technologies/ 

Technicians, Other 

15.08 Mechanical Engineering Related 

Technologies/Technicians 

15.0801 Aeronautical/Aerospace Engineering 

Technology/Technician 

15.0803 Automotive Engineering 

Technology/Technician 

15.0805 Mechanical Engineering/Mechanical 

Technology/Technician 

15.0899 Mechanical Engineering Related 

Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.09 Mining and Petroleum Technologies/Technicians 

15.0901 Mining Technology/Technician 

15.0903 Petroleum Technology/Technician 

15.0999 Mining and Petroleum 

Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.10 Construction Engineering Technologies 

15.1001 Construction Engineering Technology/ 

Technician 

15.11 Engineering-Related Technologies 

15.1102 Surveying Technology/Surveying 

15.1103 Hydraulics and Fluid Power Technology/ 

Technician 

15.1199 Engineering-Related Technologies, Other 

15.12 Computer Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.1201 Computer Engineering Technology/ 

Technician 

15.1202 Computer Technology/Computer Systems 

Technology 

15.1203 Computer Hardware Technology/Technician 

15.1204 Computer Software Technology/Technician 

15.1299 Computer Engineering Technologies/ 

Technicians, Other 

15.13 Drafting/Design Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.1301 Drafting and Design Technology/Technician, 

General 

15.1302 CAD/CADD Drafting and/or Design 

Technology/Technician 

15.1303 Architectural Drafting and Architectural 

CAD/CADD 

15.1304 Civil Drafting and Civil Engineering 

CAD/CADD 

15.1305 Electrical/Electronics Drafting and 

Electrical/Electronics CAD/CADD 

15.1306 Mechanical Drafting and Mechanical Drafting 

CAD/CADD 

15.1399 Drafting/Design Engineering 

Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.14 Nuclear Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.1401 Nuclear Engineering Technology/Technician 

15.15 Engineering-Related Fields 

15.1501 Engineering/Industrial Management 

15.99 Engineering Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.9999 Engineering Technologies/Technicians, Other 

29. MILITARY TECHNOLOGIES 

29.01 Military Technologies 

29.0101 Military Technologies 

41. SCIENCE TECHNOLOGIES/TECHNICIANS 

41.01 Biology Technician/Biotechnology Laboratory 

Technician 

41.0101 Biology Technician/Biotechnology Laboratory 

Technician 

41.02 Nuclear and Industrial Radiologic 

Technologies/Technicians 

41.0204 Industrial Radiologic Technology/Technician 

41.0205 Nuclear/Nuclear Power 

Technology/Technician 

41.0299 Nuclear and Industrial Radiologic 

Technologies/Technicians, Other 

41.03 Physical Science Technologies/Technicians 

41.0301 Chemical Technology/Technician 

41.0399 Physical Science Technologies/Technicians, 

Other 

41.99 Science Technologies/Technicians, Other 

41.9999 Science Technologies/Technicians, Other 
APPENDIX A. LIST OF NATIONAL SMART GRANT-ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

— 115 —

Multidisciplinary Studies 

30. MULTI/INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES 

30.01 Biological and Physical Sciences 

30.0101 Biological and Physical Sciences 

30.06 Systems Science and Theory 

30.0601 Systems Science and Theory 

30.08 Mathematics and Computer Science 

30.0801 Mathematics and Computer Science 

30.1501 Science, Technology and Society 

30.16 Accounting and Computer Science 

30.1601 Accounting and Computer Science 

30.18 Natural Sciences 

30.1801 Natural Sciences 

30.24 Neuroscience 

30.2401 Neuroscience 

30.25 Cognitive Science 

30.2501 Cognitive Science 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
— 117 —

APPENDIX B 

History of the ACG and National SMART Grant 

Programs 
APPENDIX B. HISTORY OF THE ACGS/NATIONAL SMART GRANTS 

— 118 — 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

Feb. 1, 2006. 

Effective as of July 1, 

2006, for the 2006–07 

academic year. 

Congress passes the Higher Education 

Reconciliation Act of 2005 as part of the Deficit 

Reduction Act of 2005. 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill

=s109-1932 

An eligible student may receive an Academic 

Competitiveness Grant (ACG) of up to $750 for 

the first academic year of study and up to 

$1,300 for the second academic year of study. 

To be eligible for each academic year, a 

student must: 

• Be a U.S. citizen; 

• Be a Federal Pell Grant recipient; 

• Be enrolled full-time in a degree program; 

• Be enrolled in the first or second academic 

year of his or her program of study at a 

two-year or four-year degree-granting 

institution; 

• Have completed a rigorous secondary 

school program of study established by a 

state or local education agency and 

recognized as such by the secretary (after 

Jan. 1, 2006, if a first-year student, and 

after Jan. 1, 2005, if a second-year 

student); 

• If a first-year student, not have been 

previously enrolled in an undergraduate 

program; and 

• If a second-year student, have at least a 

cumulative 3.0 grade point average for the 

first academic year. 

An eligible student may receive a National 

Science and Mathematics Access to Retain 

Talent (National SMART) Grant of up to $4,000 

for each of the third and fourth academic years 

of study. To be eligible for each academic year, 

a student must: 

• Be a U.S. citizen; 

• Be a Federal Pell Grant recipient; 

• Be enrolled full-time in a degree program; 

• Be enrolled in a four-year degree-granting 

institution; 

• Major in physical, life or computer science, 

engineering, mathematics, technology, or 

a critical foreign language; and 

• Have at least a cumulative 3.0 grade point 

average in course work required for the 

major. 

Sunset provision: The authority to make grants 

under this section shall expire at the end of 

academic year 2010–11. 
APPENDIX B. HISTORY OF THE ACGS/NATIONAL SMART GRANTS 

— 119 — 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

Feb. 8, 2006 President Bush signs Deficit Reduction Act of 

2005/Higher Education Reconciliation Act 

(HERA) of 2005 into law. 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill

=s109-1932 

Improving federal student loan programs and 

increasing benefits to students. The Deficit 

Reduction Act cuts excess government 

subsidies to lenders and makes other reforms 

that will help reduce overall student loan costs 

by about $22 billion. This will save taxpayers 

$12 billion and increase student aid by $10 

billion. 

March 10, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-02) from the 

assistant secretary for postsecondary education 

and the chief operating officer, Federal Student 

Aid explaining changes to the HEA Title IV loan 

programs. 

http://ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/GEN0602.html 

The Department explains the effects of the 

Higher Education Act on the federal loan 

programs: the William D. Ford Federal Direct 

Loan Program, the Federal Perkins Loan 

Program, and the Federal Family Education 

Loan (FFEL) Program. 

March 14, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-03) issued as a 

correction to GEN-06-02. 

http://ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/GEN0603.html 

Corrects loan limits on page 7 of the GEN-06-

02 attachment. 

April 5, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-04) from the 

assistant secretary for postsecondary education 

and the chief operating officer, Federal Student 

Aid on ACG and National SMART Grant 

programs. 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/ 

GEN0604.html 

The Department explains the process for 

administering grants to institutions of higher 

education through a letter posted on the 

Department's Web site. 

April 27, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-05) from the 

assistant secretary for postsecondary education 

and the chief operating officer, Federal Student 

Aid on changes made by the Higher Education 

Reconciliation Act of 2005 (HERA). 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/G

EN0605.pdf 

The Department explains that HERA amends 

the definition of an “academic year” to require a 

minimum of 30 hours of instructional time for a 

program that measures its length in credit hours 

or a minimum of 24 weeks of instruction for a 

program that measures its length in clock 

hours, and for an undergraduate program at 

least 24 semester or trimester hours (or 36 

quarter hours) for a course that measures time 

in credit hours, or 900 clock hours for a course 

of study that measures its program length in 

clock hours. 

May 2006 Fact Sheet on student eligibility options

http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitivenes

s/ac-smart.html

May 2, 2006 Press Release—The Department of Education 

Announces Student Eligibility Options for New 

Academic Grants. 

http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2006/05/

05022006.html 

May 2, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-06) from the 

Office of Postsecondary Education and Federal 

Student Aid providing the list of academic 

The Department announces guidelines on how 

students will qualify as having successfully 

completed a rigorous secondary school 
APPENDIX B. HISTORY OF THE ACGS/NATIONAL SMART GRANTS 

— 120 — 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

majors eligible for the National SMART Grants 

for the 2006–07 award year. 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/ 

GEN0606.html 

program of study. This letter provides the list of 

the instructional programs that qualify as 

eligible majors, including critical foreign 

language majors, for the National SMART 

Grant program. These fields of study qualify as 

eligible majors for the National SMART Grant 

program to the extent a student is enrolled in a 

bachelor's degree or a graduate degree 

program that includes at least three academic 

years of undergraduate education. 

May 2, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-08) from 

Secretary Spellings describing plans for 

implementation. 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/ 

GEN0608.html 

Secretary Spellings outlines the initial eligibility 

requirements for ACGs and National SMART 

Grants and the Department’s options for 

meeting the “rigorous curriculum” requirement 

in 2006–07, including recognizing all existing 

Advanced or Honors diploma programs, the 

State Scholars Initiative (SSI), a set of courses 

similar to the SSI, and an Advanced Placement 

(AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) course 

and test option. 

May 24, 2006 Guidance on dual enrollment questions In establishing the ACG program, Congress 

restricted eligibility for students to receive a 

first-year ACG to a student who “has not been 

previously enrolled in a program of 

undergraduate education.” See 

§401A(c)(3)(A)(ii) of the Higher Education Act. 

This restriction does not apply where a student 

enrolled in one or more college level 

undergraduate courses while still in high school, 

as long as the student was not admitted into a 

formal program of study at the postsecondary 

education institution. 

June 1, 2006 Deadline for states to establish and submit to 

the secretary of education an alternate rigorous 

secondary school program of study for 

recognition in the 2006–07 academic year. 

June 20, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-10) from 

Secretary Spellings on implementation 

guidance related to HERA changes. 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/G

EN0610.pdf 

As processing of the 2006–07 Free Application 

for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) began in 

January 2006, forms, systems, and processes 

at the Department and Institutions did not 

account for 2006–07 changes to HERA—

additional guidance is issued (e.g., re: 

increased maximum Adjusted Gross Income for 

an applicant to be eligible for an auto-zero 

estimated family contribution (EFC). 

June 21, 2006 Press Release—Secretary Spellings 

announces July 1 availability of $790 million in 

new grants for higher education. 

http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2006/06/
APPENDIX B. HISTORY OF THE ACGS/NATIONAL SMART GRANTS 

— 121 — 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

06212006.html 

June 29, 2006 Department posts information online for 

students reviewing the eligibility requirements 

for the ACG and National SMART Grant 

programs. 

http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitivenes

s/ac-smart2.html

Late June 2006 States, colleges and students will receive notice 

of programs that have been recognized as 

rigorous for grant purposes by the secretary of 

education for the 2006–07 academic year. 

July 1, 2006 Beginning July 1, 2006, potentially eligible 

students are notified via email and regular mail 

that they should submit additional information to 

the Department to determine ACG eligibility. 

July 3, 2006 

Effective Aug. 2, 2006, 

for the 2006–07 

academic year. 

Interim Final Regulations are posted in the 

Federal Register (Vol. 71, No. 127) and 

comments are requested on or before Aug. 17, 

2006. 

http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/propr

ule/2006-3/070306a.html 

The secretary amends Title 34 to establish 

regulations for the ACG and National SMART 

Grant programs. The ACG and National 

SMART Grant programs specify the eligibility 

requirements for a student to apply for and 

receive an award under these programs for the 

2006–07 award year. These Interim Final 

Regulations also identify the roles of institutions 

of higher education (institutions), state 

education agencies (SEAs), and local education 

agencies (LEAs) in administering the programs. 

[These Interim Final Regulations will be 

effective for the 2006–07 award year. The 

secretary is, however, soliciting comments on 

all aspects of these Interim Final Regulations 

and may, for the 2007–08 award year, amend 

and finalize them as appropriate in response to 

comments received. For regulations that would 

take effect for the 2008–09 award year and 

subsequent award years, the secretary intends 

to conduct negotiated rulemaking, as required 

under section 492 of the HEA.] The ACG and 

National SMART Grant program Interim Final 

Regulations duplicate those of the Federal Pell 

Grant program to the extent practicable given 

the similar nature of these programs. Like the 

Federal Pell Grant program, the ACG and 

National SMART Grant programs provide for 

direct grants from the federal government to 

students to assist in paying their college 

expenses. In addition, a student must be 

receiving a Federal Pell Grant to be eligible for 

an ACG or National SMART Grant. The 

secretary will be administering the ACG and 

National SMART Grant programs using the 
APPENDIX B. HISTORY OF THE ACGS/NATIONAL SMART GRANTS 

— 122 — 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

same delivery system that the secretary uses 

for the Federal Pell Grant program. The 

secretary expects that this coordination of 

administrative requirements will assist 

participating institutions in administering these 

programs, reduce the amount of additional 

institutional administrative burden and 

paperwork, and simplify the process for 

students to apply for assistance under these 

programs. 

July 3, 2006–Aug. 17, 

2006 

Comments received from institutions and other 

organizations 

Aug. 18, 2006 Announcement in Federal Register (Vol. 71, 

No. 160) of negotiated rulemaking sessions on 

the changes to the HEA, and nominations of 

speakers solicited on or before November 9, 

2006. Announcement of four regional hearings 

to be held in Fall 2006 to help determine an 

agenda for the upcoming sessions. 

http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/propr

ule/2006-3/081806a.html 

Aug. 25, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-15) from Acting 

Asst. Secretary Manning, Office of 

Postsecondary Education, on revised list of 

eligible academic majors. 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/Gen0615.html 

Revised the list of eligible academic majors 

previously provided (GEN-06-06) to include 

certain majors that were inadvertently omitted. 

Fall 2006 Institutions of higher education will verify 

student eligibility using records of high school 

performance. Student aid will be disbursed. 

Sept. 19, 2006–Nov. 8, 

2006 

Regional hearings on upcoming agenda for 

negotiated rulemaking sessions for revised 

regulations for the 2008–09 award year 

Oct. 20, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-18) from the 

acting assistant secretary for postsecondary 

education providing guidance to institutions 

concerning implementation of the "academic 

year" definition within the ACG and National 

SMART Grant programs for the 2006–07 and 

2007–08 award years. 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/ 

GEN0618.html 

The Department offered two approaches to 

determining “academic year,” assuming that 

there were 30 weeks of instructional time for 

each increment of credit hours that comprises 

the institution’s Title IV academic year (e.g., 24 

credit hours equals 30 weeks of instruction, or 

30 credit hours equals 30 weeks of instruction) 

OR determine the actual number of weeks of 

instruction by reviewing the student’s record to 

see how many weeks it took the student to 

complete the credit hours earned (subtracting 

credits for AP or IB course work, testing out, life 

experience). Also addressed fourth year 

students who had exceeded four times the 

number of academic credits in an academic 

program that required more than that for 
APPENDIX B. HISTORY OF THE ACGS/NATIONAL SMART GRANTS 

— 123 — 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

completion. 

Nov. 1, 2006 Deadline for states to establish and submit to 

the secretary of education additional rigorous 

secondary school programs of study for 

recognition in the 2007–08 academic year. 

Nov. 1, 2006 

Effective 2007–08 

award year 

Final Regulations published in the Federal 

Register (Vol. 71, No. 211) with responses to 

the 80 comments received between July 3, 

2006 and Aug. 17, 2006. 

http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrul

e/2006-4/110106a.html 

Revisions to regulations, developed through the 

analysis of comments received on the Interim 

Final Regulations published on July 3, 2006. 

The secretary invited comments on the interim 

Final Regulations and received 80 comments. 

The ACG regulations respond to the growing 

number of states and local educational 

agencies that are trying to increase students' 

access to rigorous classes in high school. The 

package includes a new provision that allows 

state and local education agencies to submit 

rigorous curriculum for approval beyond the 

following year. Other provisions clarify how to 

account for Advanced Placement (AP), 

International Baccalaureate (IB) and dual 

enrollment credits, and how to determine GPAs 

for students who attend schools or institutions 

that do not issue numeric or letter grades. The 

National SMART Grant regulations include a 

new provision explaining how an institution can 

submit petitions to have additional majors 

included as National SMART-eligible majors. 

Other provisions clarify the existing regulations 

that require National SMART recipients to be 

enrolled in and making progress toward a 

National SMART-eligible major. 

Jan. 2007 States receive notice of rigorous secondary 

school programs of study that have been 

recognized by the secretary of education for the 

2007–08 academic year. 

Feb. 5–7, 2007 ACG/National SMART Negotiated Rulemaking, 

First Session 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulem

aking/2007/acg.html 

Negotiators discussed: 

• Rigorous secondary school programs; 

• Mandatory institutional participation; 

• Eligibility of certificate programs for ACGs; 

• Requirement that Pell Grants and 

ACGs/National SMART Grants be 

dispersed at the same institution when 

awarded within the same term; 

• Grade point average 

o Transfer students 

o Course work 

o Timing of calculation 

o Eligibility for disbursement. 
APPENDIX B. HISTORY OF THE ACGS/NATIONAL SMART GRANTS 

— 124 — 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

• Interpretation of previously enrolled for 

student eligibility 

o College credits earned in high 

school 

o Treatment of AP/IB courses and 

credits. 

• Majors 

o Additional majors and CIP codes 

o Institutional flexibility in determining 

majors. 

• Clarify successful completion of rigorous 

secondary school program of study; 

• Departmental monitoring disbursements of 

awards. 

March 5–7, 2007 ACG/National SMART Negotiated Rulemaking, 

Second Session 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulem

aking/2007/acg.html 

Negotiators discussed: 

• Recognition of rigorous secondary 

school programs; 

• Mandatory participation by 

postsecondary institutions; 

• Eligibility of certificate programs for 

ACGs; 

• Requirement that Federal Pell Grants 

and ACGs or National SMART Grants 

be disbursed at the same institution; 

• Grade Point Average (GPA)—transfer 

students; 

• GPA—course work, timing of 

calculation, and eligibility for 

disbursement; 

• Academic year progression 

• Interpreting prior enrollment—dualenrollment and early college programs; 

• Eligible majors and CIP codes 

expansion; 

• Institutional flexibility in determining 

timing of student declaration of eligible 

major; 

• Completion of a Rigorous Secondary 

School Program of Study. 

April 16–18, 2007 ACG/National SMART Negotiated Rulemaking, 

Third Session 

Regularly updated Information for students and parents.

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/acsmart-families.html

Provides overview of the programs, outlines 

eligibility requirements, and lists options for 

meeting the rigorous curriculum requirement. 
APPENDIX B. HISTORY OF THE ACGS/NATIONAL SMART GRANTS 

— 125 — 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

Aug. 7, 2007 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the 

ACG and National SMART Grant programs in 

the Federal Register (Vol. 72, No. 151). 

http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/propr

ule/2007-3/080707a.html 

The secretary proposed to amend the 

regulations for the ACG and National SMART 

Grant programs. The secretary amended these 

regulations to reduce administrative burden for 

program participants and to clarify program 

requirements. 

Sept. 6, 2007 Comments on NPRM due to the Department.

Sept. 24, 2007 Dear Colleague letter (GEN-07-06) from the 

assistant secretary for postsecondary 

education, providing a revised list of eligible 

majors for the 2007–08 academic year. 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/ 

GEN0706.html 

Additional eligible majors include Food Science, 

Food Technology and Processing, 

Environmental Science, Fishing and Fisheries 

Sciences and Management, Forest Sciences 

and Biology, Wood Science and Wood 

Products/Pulp and Paper Technology, Wildlife 

and Wildlands Science and Management, 

Biopsychology, Nutrition Sciences, 

Physiological Psychology/Psychobiology 

Oct. 9, 2007 Dear Colleague letter (GEN-07-06) from the 

assistant secretary for postsecondary 

education, on course enrollment requirements 

for payment in the National SMART Grant 

program. 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/ 

GEN0707.html 

An otherwise eligible student can receive a 

National SMART Grant for a payment period 

only if the student is enrolled in at least one 

course that meets the specific requirements of 

the student's National SMART Grant-eligible 

major. 

Oct. 26, 2007 Press release announcing ACG/National 

SMART Grant data results from 2006–07 

academic year: 

http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2007/10/

10262007.html 

Office of Postsecondary Education, Year 1 

results by state: 

http://www.ed.gov/programs/smart/performance

.html

The secretary announced the first-year national 

data results from the ACGs and National 

SMART Grants. Results show that in the first 

year, $233,038,410 in ACGs were awarded to 

299,089 students nationwide, and 

$195,544,735 in National SMART Grants were 

awarded to 60,976 students. Also announced 

was the goal to double the number of students 

receiving ACGs and National SMART Grants by 

2010–11 and to continue to work with states, 

colleges and high schools to raise awareness 

about ACGs and National SMART Grants. 

Oct. 29, 2007 

Effective July 1, 2008. 

[Institutions that 

administer the ACG 

and National SMART 

Grant programs may, at 

their discretion, choose 

to implement these 

Final Regulations in 

their entirety, or by 

section, on or after 

Nov. 1, 2007.] 

Final Regulations published in Federal Register

(Vol. 72, No. 208). 

http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/ 

finrule/2007-4/102907a.html 

The secretary amends the regulations for the 

ACG and National SMART Grant programs to 

reduce administrative burden for program 

participants and to clarify program 

requirements. 
APPENDIX B. HISTORY OF THE ACGS/NATIONAL SMART GRANTS 

— 126 — 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

Feb. 6, 2008 Dear Colleague letter (GEN-08-02) from the 

assistant secretary for postsecondary 

education, on the list of process of adding 

eligible majors for 2008–09. 

Explains the process by postsecondary 

institutions can request additional majors to the 

list of eligible majors for the National SMART 

Grant Program for the 2008–09 award year. 

April 17, 2008 H.R. 5715: Ensuring Continued Access to 

Student Loans Act of 2008 (ECASLA) passed 

by House of Representatives 

http://thomas.loc.gov 

April 30, 2008 ECASLA passed by Senate

http://thomas.loc.gov 

May 7, 2008 

Effective Jan. 1, 2009 

ECASLA signed into law by President Bush

http://thomas.loc.gov 

• Strikes reference to “academic year” in 

current law that ties first-, second-, third-, 

and fourth-year eligibility for, as applicable, 

ACGs and National SMART Grants to the 

student's academic year standing. 

• Removes the stipulation that ACG- and 

National SMART Grant-eligible students 

must be U.S. citizens, and applies the 

same citizenship criteria as for the Federal 

Pell Grant program (permitting certain 

eligible noncitizens to qualify) 

• Authorizes ACG and National SMART 

Grant eligibility for students enrolled no 

less than half-time, and provides for a 

ratable reduction in the award for a student 

attending less than full-time in the same 

manner as for Pell-eligible students who 

attend on less than a full-time basis. 

• 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. 

• Authorizes an additional $4,000 National 

SMART Grant award for the fifth year of a 

baccalaureate degree program in one of 

the requisite majors that requires students 

to complete a full five years of coursework. 

• Directs all surplus funds from the programs 

back into the ACG/National SMART Grant 

programs. 

June 19, 2008 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-08-09) from the 

principal deputy assistant secretary, Office of 

Postsecondary Education, summarizing 

ECASLA. 

June 20, 2008 Dear Colleague letter (GEN-08-09) from the 

principal deputy assistant secretary, on the list 

The list of eligible academic majors as 

published in Dear Colleague letter GEN-07-06 
APPENDIX B. HISTORY OF THE ACGS/NATIONAL SMART GRANTS 

— 127 — 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

of eligible majors for 2008–09. carry over unchanged to the 2008–09 award 

year. 

Aug. 14, 2008 H.R. 4137: The Higher Education Opportunity 

Act of 2008 (HEOA) enacted and reauthorized 

the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA). 

• Changes the effective date for all programrelated revisions made in H.R. 5715 from 

Jan. 1, 2009 to July 1, 2009. 

• States given increased control over 

defining rigorous secondary school 

programs of study. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
— 129 —

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 collegepreparatory 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. 
APPENDIX C. HIGH SCHOOLS THAT WORK AWARD OF EDUCATIONAL 

ACHIEVEMENT 

— 130 — 

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.
— 131 —

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, crosssectional 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. 
APPENDIX D. NATIONAL DATA SOURCES

— 132 — 

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. 
— 133 —

APPENDIX E 

Supplemental Tables on ACG and National SMART 

Grant Program Participation by Institution Type in 

2006–07 
APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE IN 2006–07 

— 134 —

Table E-1.

—Participation of eligible institutions in ACG and SMART Grant programs: 2006–07

Number Percent Percent of

Number Percent partici- partici- Pell Grants Pell Grants in Pell Grants

partici- partici- pating in pating in Total Pell in partici- nonpartici- in particiTotal pating pating SMART SMART Grant pating pating pating

Type of institution number in ACG in ACG Grant Grant number colleges colleges collegesColleges eligible for ACG 3,557 2,772 77.9 1,420 39.9 4,929,449 4,463,605 465,844 90.5Colleges eligible for 

 SMART Grant 2,074 1,739 83.8 1,425 68.7 2,821,260 2,475,539 345,721 87.7

Colleges eligible for 

 ACG or SMART Grant 3,562 2,772 83.8 1,425 68.7 4,933,498 4,510,929 422,569 91.4

Colleges eligible for ACG only

Total 1,488 1,033 69.4

— — 2,112,238 1,789,440 322,798 84.7

Public two-year 1,000 871 87.1

— — 1,748,828 1,658,316 90,512 94.8

Private nonprofit two-year 95 40 42.1

— — 22,335 14,331 8,004 64.2

For-profit two-year 374 104 27.8

— — 304,178 84,166 220,012 27.7

Four-year* 19 18 94.7

— — 36,897 32,627 4,270 88.4

Colleges eligible for ACG or SMART Grant

Total 2,074 1,739 83.8 1,425 68.7 2,821,260 2,475,539 345,721 87.7Public four-year 593 555 93.6 520 87.7 1,606,175 1,510,061 96,114 94.0Private nonprofit four-year 1,271 1,053 82.8 820 64.5 738,267 634,528 103,739 85.9For-profit four-year 210 131 62.4 85 40.5 476,818 330,950 145,868 69.4

— Not applicable.

* Associate degree colleges that only offer bachelor’s degrees in a few fields.

NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2006–07. Participating colleges are those that had at least one 

ACG or SMART Grant disbursed. Institutions with multiple branches are counted separately when the information was reported by the campus. Many community college 

systems and for-profit institutions with multiple campus locations did not provide information at the campus level. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants, but student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions and greater than 5 at four-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by class level, but included in the totals.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007).

Number of Pell Grants in these institutions Number of institutions
APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE IN 2006–07 

— 135 — 

Table E-2.

—Number and percentage of Pell Grant students receiving ACGs or SMART Grants at participating colleges: 2006–07

As percent As percent

of first- of thirdFirst- and Third- and As per- and As per- and As persecond- fourth- cent of second- cent of fourth- cent of

Type of Total year year Total all Pell year Pell Total all Pell year Pell Total all Pellparticipating institution number students students number Grants Grants number Grants Grants number GrantsColleges participating in ACG 4,463,605 3,009,883 1,253,636 301,686 6.8 10.0 61,930 1.4 4.9 363,616 8.1Colleges participating in 

 SMART Grant 2,475,539 1,263,376 1,208,054 252,756 10.2 20.0 62,371 2.5 5.2 315,127 12.7

Colleges participating in 

 ACG or SMART Grant 4,510,929 3,040,187 1,270,577 301,686 6.7 9.9 62,371 1.4 4.9 364,057 8.1

Colleges participating in ACG only

Total 2,035,390 1,776,811 62,523 48,930 2.4 2.8 — — — 48,930 2.4Public two-year 1,658,316 1,465,306 — 36,104 2.2 2.5 — — — 36,104 2.2Private nonprofit two-year 14,331 13,616 — 1,106 7.7 8.1 — — — 1,106 7.7For-profit two-year 84,166 82,351 — 1,081 1.3 1.3 — — — 1,081 1.3Four-year* 278,577 215,538 62,523 10,639 3.8 4.9 — — — 10,639 3.8

Colleges participating in ACG or SMART Grant

Total 2,475,539 1,263,376 1,208,054 252,756 10.2 20.0 62,371 2.5 5.2 315,127 12.7Public four-year 1,510,061 676,304 830,865 174,322 11.5 25.8 42,191 2.8 5.1 216,513 14.3Private nonprofit four-year 634,528 327,376 306,525 76,426 12.0 23.3 16,271 2.6 5.3 92,697 14.6For-profit four-year 330,950 259,696 70,664 2,008 0.6 0.8 3,909 1.2 5.5 5,917 1.8

— Not applicable.

* Associate degree colleges that only offer bachelor’s degrees in a few fields.

NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2006–07. Participating colleges are those that had at least one 

ACG or SMART Grant disbursed. Institutions with multiple branches are counted separately when the information was reported by the campus. Many community college 

systems and for-profit institutions with multiple campus locations did not provide information at the campus level. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants, but student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions and greater than 5 at four-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by class level, but included in the totals.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007).

ACG or SMART

Pell Grant recipients ACG recipients SMART Grant recipients Grant recipients
APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE IN 2006–07 

— 136 — 

Table E-3.—Average number of Pell Grants, ACGs, or SMART Grants at participating institutions: 2006–07

First- and Third- and

Total second-year fourth-year ACGs or

Type of Pell students with students with SMART SMART

participating institution Grants Pell Grants Pell Grants ACGs Grants Grants

Colleges participating in ACG 1,610 1,086 452 109 22 131

Colleges participating in 

 SMART Grant 1,737 887 848 177 44 221

Colleges participating in 

 ACG or SMART Grant 1,606 1,082 452 107 22 130

Colleges participating in ACG only

Total 1,471 1,284 45 35 — 35

Public two-year 1,904 1,682 — 41 — 41

Private nonprofit two-year 358 340 — 28 — 28

For-profit two-year 809 792 — 10 — 10

Four-year* 3,761 3,062 691 118 — 118

Colleges participating in 

 ACG or SMART Grant

Total 1,737 887 848 177 44 221

Public four-year 2,904 1,301 1,598 335 81 416

Private nonprofit four-year 774 399 374 93 20 113

For-profit four-year 3,894 3,055 831 24 46 70

— Not applicable.

* Associate degree colleges that only offer bachelor’s degrees in a few fields.

NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2006–07. 

Participating colleges are those that had at least one ACG or SMART grant disbursed. Institutions with multiple branches 

are counted separately when the information was reported by the campus. Many community college systems and for-profit 

institutions with multiple campus locations did not provide information at the campus level. Class level is institution-reported 

for ACGs and SMART Grants, but student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at twoyear institutions and greater than 5 at four-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by class level, but 

included in the totals.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).
APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE IN 2006–07 

— 137 — 

Table E-4.

—Number and percentage distribution of colleges participating in ACG or SMART Grant programs by the number of grant recipients: 

Table E-4.—2006–07

Total

Type of More than collegesinstitution 1–10 11–50 51–100 101–200 201–500 501–1,000 1,000 with ACGsNumber of ACG-participating colleges by number of ACGs in the college

Total 606 925 515 342 263 86 35 2,772 Public two-year 270 396 124 56 21 4 — 871 Private nonprofit two-year 18 16 3 3 — — — 40 For-profit two-year 76 24 3 1 — — — 104 Public four-year 25 73 74 103 188 70 35 568 Private nonprofit four-year 141 370 300 178 53 12 — 1,054 For-profit four-year 76 46 11 1 1 — — 135 

Percentage distribution of ACG-participating colleges by number of ACGs in the college

Total 21.9 33.4 18.6 12.3 9.5 3.1 1.3 100.0Public two-year 31.0 45.5 14.2 6.4 2.4 0.5 — 100.0Private nonprofit two-year 45.0 40.0 7.5 7.5 — — — 100.0For-profit two-year 73.1 23.1 2.9 1.0 — — — 100.0Public four-year 4.4 12.9 13.0 18.1 33.1 12.3 6.2 100.0Private nonprofit four-year 13.4 35.1 28.5 16.9 5.0 1.1 — 100.0For-profit four-year 56.3 34.1 8.1 0.7 0.7 —

— 100.0

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.

Number of ACG recipients in the college
APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE IN 2006–07 

— 138 — 

Table E-4.

—Number and percentage distribution of colleges participating in ACG or SMART Grant programs by the number of grant recipients: 

Table E-4.—2006–07—Continued

Total

Type of More than colleges withinstitution 1–10 11–50 51–100 101–200 201–500 501–1,000 1,000 SMART GrantsNumber of SMART Grant-participating colleges by number of SMART Grants in the college

Total 539 595 148 83 47 11 2 1,425 Public four-year 78 212 107 70 44 9 0 520 Private nonprofit four-year 427 339 38 12 2 1 1 820 For-profit four-year 34 44 3 1 1 1 1 85 

Percentage distribution of SMART Grant-participating colleges by number of SMART Grants in the college

Total 37.8 41.8 10.4 5.8 3.3 0.8 0.1 100.0Public four-year 15.0 40.8 20.6 13.5 8.5 1.7 0.0 100.0Private nonprofit four-year 52.1 41.3 4.6 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 100.0For-profit four-year 40.0 51.8 3.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 100.0

— Not applicable.NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2006–07. Participating colleges are those that had at least one ACG or SMART Grant disbursed. Institutions with multiple branches are counted separately when the information was reported by the campus. Many community college 

systems and for-profit institutions with multiple campus locations did not provide information at the campus level. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants, but student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions and greater than 5 at four-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by class level, but included in the totals. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007).

Number of SMART Grant recipients in the college
APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE IN 2006–07 

— 139 — 

Table E-5.

—Number and percentage distribution of colleges participating in ACG or SMART Grant programs by the percentage of Pell Grant 

Table E-5.—recipients who also received ACGs or SMART Grants: 2006–07

Total colleges

Type of with ACGs orinstitution Less than 2% 2–4.9% 5–9.9% 10–19.9% 20–29.9% 30–39.9% 40% or more SMART GrantsNumber of ACG- or SMART Grant-participating colleges by percent of all Pell Grant students receiving ACGs or SMART Grants

Total 777 471 457 527 327 166 81 2,806 

Public two-year 514 221 111 21 0 1 2 870 

Private nonprofit two-year 8 7 5 8 3 6 3 40 

For-profit two-year 72 17 10 4 1 0 0 104 

Public four-year 38 61 121 226 115 12 2 575 Private nonprofit four-year 69 117 196 263 204 147 74 1,070 For-profit four-year 76 48 14 5 4 0 0 147 

Percentage distribution of ACG- or SMART Grant-participating colleges by percent of all Pell Grant students receiving ACGs or SMART Grants

Total 27.7 16.8 16.3 18.8 11.7 5.9 2.9 100.0

Public two-year 59.1 25.4 12.8 2.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 100.0

Private nonprofit two-year 20.0 17.5 12.5 20.0 7.5 15.0 7.5 100.0

For-profit two-year 69.2 16.3 9.6 3.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Public four-year 6.6 10.6 21.0 39.3 20.0 2.1 0.3 100.0

Private nonprofit four-year 6.4 10.9 18.3 24.6 19.1 13.7 6.9 100.0For-profit four-year 51.7 32.7 9.5 3.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 100.0

Type of Total collegesinstitution Less than 2% 2–4.9% 5–9.9% 10–19.9% 20–29.9% 30–39.9% 40% or more with ACGsNumber of ACG-participating colleges by percent of first- and second-year Pell Grant students receiving ACGs

Total 714 395 313 365 251 224 507 2,769 Public two-year 485 232 118 32 0 1 2 870 

Private nonprofit two-year 7 8 4 9 2 7 3 40 

For-profit two-year 71 18 10 4 1 0 0 104 

Public four-year 29 49 55 118 99 94 123 567 Private nonprofit four-year 39 58 111 199 147 122 378 1,054 For-profit four-year 83 30 15 3 2 

— 1 134 

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.

Percent of all Pell Grant students with ACGs or SMART Grants

Percent of first- and second-year Pell Grant students with ACGs
APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE IN 2006–07 

— 140 — 

Table E-5.

—Number and percentage distribution of colleges participating in ACG or SMART Grant programs by the percentage of Pell Grant 

Table E-5.—recipients who also received ACGs or SMART Grants: 2006–07—ContinuedType of Total collegesinstitution Less than 2% 2–4.9% 5–9.9% 10–19.9% 20–29.9% 30–39.9% 40% or more with ACGsPercentage distribution of ACG-participating colleges by percent of first- and second-year Pell Grant students receiving ACGs

Total 25.8 14.3 11.3 13.2 9.1 8.1 18.3 100.0

Public two-year 55.7 26.7 13.6 3.7

— 0.1 0.2 100.0

Private nonprofit two-year 17.5 20.0 10.0 22.5 5.0 17.5 7.5 100.0

For-profit two-year 68.3 17.3 9.6 3.8 1.0

—

— 100.0

Public four-year 5.1 8.6 9.7 20.8 17.5 16.6 21.7 100.0Private nonprofit four-year 3.7 5.5 10.5 18.9 13.9 11.6 35.9 100.0

For-profit four-year 61.9 22.4 11.2 2.2 1.5

— 0.7 100.0

Total colleges

Type of with SMARTinstitution Less than 2% 2–4.9% 5–9.9% 10–19.9% 20–29.9% 30–39.9% 40% or more GrantsNumber of SMART Grant-participating colleges by percent of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant students receiving SMART Grants

Total 304 545 343 174 36 14 9 1,425 Public four-year 105 241 121 46 4 2 1 520 

Private nonprofit four-year 181 285 212 109 22 7 4 820 

For-profit four-year 18 19 10 19 10 5 4 85 

Percentage distribution of SMART Grant-participating colleges by percent of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant students receiving SMART Grants

Total 21.3 38.2 24.1 12.2 2.5 1.0 0.6 100.0Public four-year 20.2 46.3 23.3 8.8 0.8 0.4 0.2 100.0Private nonprofit four-year 22.1 34.8 25.9 13.3 2.7 0.9 0.5 100.0For-profit four-year 21.2 22.4 11.8 22.4 11.8 5.9 4.7 100.0

— Not applicable.NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2006–07. Participating colleges are those that had at least one ACG or SMART Grant disbursed. Institutions with multiple branches are counted separately when the information was reported by the campus. Many community college 

systems and for-profit institutions with multiple campus locations did not provide information at the campus level. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants, but student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions and greater than 5 at four-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by class level, but included in the totals. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007).

Percent of first- and second-year Pell Grant students with ACGs

Percent of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant students with SMART Grants
APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE IN 2006–07 

— 141 — 

Table E-6.—Number and percentage distribution of ACGs and total Pell Grants by class level and type of 

Table E-6.—institution, and percentage of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients receiving ACGs: 

Table E-6.—2006–07

First-time, Total firstType of institution first-year Other first-year Second-year and second-year

Number of ACGs

Total ACGs 130,645 100,318 68,738 299,701 

Public four-year 71,737 66,273 39,980 177,990 

Private nonprofit four-year 37,224 21,605 22,344 81,173 

For-profit four-year 1,697 532 474 2,703 

Public two-year 18,655 11,474 5,533 35,662 

Private nonprofit two-year 635 261 203 1,099 

For-profit two-year 697 173 204 1,074 

Total Pell Grant-only recipients 887,865 815,769 968,874 2,672,508 

Number of Pell Grants

Total Pell Grants 1,018,510 916,087 1,037,612 2,972,209 

Public four-year 240,520 186,873 320,417 747,810 

Private nonprofit four-year 126,839 88,335 150,920 366,094 

For-profit four-year 127,476 126,664 75,272 329,412 

Public two-year 485,474 477,488 472,126 1,435,088 

Private nonprofit two-year 4,450 4,712 4,132 13,294 

For-profit two-year 33,751 32,015 14,745 80,511 

Percentage distribution of grants

Total ACGs 43.6 33.5 22.9 100.0

Public four-year 40.3 37.2 22.5 100.0

Private nonprofit four-year 45.9 26.6 27.5 100.0

For-profit four-year 62.8 19.7 17.5 100.0

Public two-year 52.3 32.2 15.5 100.0

Private nonprofit two-year 57.8 23.7 18.5 100.0

For-profit two-year 64.9 16.1 19.0 100.0

Total Pell Grant-only recipients 33.2 30.5 36.3 100.0

Total Pell Grants 34.3 30.8 34.9 100.0

ACGs as percent of Pell Grants

Total ACGs 12.8 11.0 6.6 10.1

Public four-year 29.8 35.5 12.5 23.8

Private nonprofit four-year 29.3 24.5 14.8 22.2

For-profit four-year 1.3 0.4 0.6 0.8

Public two-year 3.8 2.4 1.2 2.5

Private nonprofit two-year 14.3 5.5 4.9 8.3

For-profit two-year 2.1 0.5 1.4 1.3

NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2006–07. 

Participating colleges are those that had at least one ACG or SMART Grant disbursed. Institutions with multiple branches 

are counted separately when the information was reported by the campus. Many community college systems and for-profit 

institutions with multiple campus locations did not provide information at the campus level. Class level is institution-reported 

for ACGs and SMART Grants, but student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year 

institutions and greater than 5 at four-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by class level, but 

included in the totals. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).
APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE IN 2006–07 

— 142 — 

Table E-7.—Number and percentage distribution of SMART Grants and total Pell Grants by class level and 

Table E-7.—type of institution, and percentage of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients receiving 

Table E-7.—SMART Grants: 2006–07

Total thirdType of institution Third-year Fourth-year and fourth-year

Number of grants

Total SMART Grants 29,755 32,575 62,330 

Public four-year 19,664 22,492 42,156 

Private nonprofit four-year 7,798 8,467 16,265 

For-profit four-year 2,293 1,616 3,909 

Total Pell Grant-only recipients 602,090 603,019 1,205,109 

Total Pell Grants 631,845 635,594 1,267,439 

Public four-year 410,223 443,955 854,178 

Private nonprofit four-year 169,190 165,540 334,730 

For-profit four-year 52,432 26,099 78,531 

Percentage distribution of grants

Total SMART Grants 47.7 52.3 100.0

Public four-year 46.6 53.4 100.0

Private nonprofit four-year 47.9 52.1 100.0

For-profit four-year 58.7 41.3 100.0

Total Pell Grant-only recipients 50.0 50.0 100.0

Total Pell Grant recipients 49.9 50.1 100.0

SMART Grants as percent of Pell Grants

Total SMART Grants 4.7 5.1 4.9

Public four-year 4.8 5.1 4.9

Private nonprofit four-year 4.6 5.1 4.9

For-profit four-year 4.4 6.2 5.0

NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2006–07. 

Participating colleges are those that had at least one ACG or SMART Grant disbursed. Institutions with multiple branches 

are counted separately when the information was reported by the campus. Many community college systems and for-profit 

institutions with multiple campus locations did not provide information at the campus level. Class level is institution-reported 

for ACGs and SMART Grants, but student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at twoyear institutions and greater than 5 at four-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by class level, 

but included in the totals. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).
APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE IN 2006–07 

— 143 — 

Table E-8.—Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant recipients by class 

Table E-8.—level, gender, citizenship, and age and percentage of ACG and SMART Grant recipients as a 

Table E-8.—percentage of total Pell Grants: 2006–07

Eligible 18 or 24 or

Class level Male Female U.S. citizen non-citizen younger 19–23 older

Number of grants

First- and second-year students

ACG recipients 111,999 184,090 299,701 0 163,038 136,108 433 

Pell Grant-only 

 recipients 879,943 1,763,632 2,451,627 216,039 307,421 1,108,890 1,256,113 

Total Pell Grant 

 recipients 991,942 1,947,722 2,751,328 216,039 470,459 1,244,998 1,256,546 

Third- and fourth-year students

SMART Grant 

 recipients 36,197 25,962 62,330 0 282 41,670 20,351 

Pell Grant-only 

 recipients 457,765 741,208 1,116,588 76,756 1,052 596,109 607,939 

Total Pell Grant 

 recipients 493,962 767,170 1,178,918 76,756 1,334 637,779 628,290 

Percentage distribution of grants

First- and second-year students

ACG recipients 37.8 62.2 100.0 0.0 54.4 45.4 0.1

Pell Grant-only 

 recipients 33.3 66.7 91.9 8.1 11.5 41.5 47.0

Total Pell Grant 

 recipients 33.7 66.3 92.7 7.3 15.8 41.9 42.3

Third- and fourth-year students

SMART Grant 

 recipients 58.2 41.8 100.0 0.0 0.5 66.9 32.7

Pell Grant-only 

 recipients 38.2 61.8 93.6 6.4 0.1 49.5 50.4

Total Pell Grant 

 recipients 39.2 60.8 93.9 6.1 0.1 50.3 49.6

ACGs and SMART Grants as 

 percent of Pell Grants

First- and second-year students

ACGs as percent 

 of Pell Grants 11.3 9.5 10.9 0.0 34.7 10.9 0.0

Third- and fourth-year students

SMART Grants 

 as percent 

 of Pell Grants 7.3 3.4 5.3 0.0 21.1 6.5 3.2

NOTE: This table is based on unduplicated records. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants, but 

student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions and greater than 5 at 

four-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by class level, but included in the totals. Missing values 

are excluded, so there will be small differences in the totals for gender, citizenship, age, dependency, income, and EFC. 

Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

Gender Citizenship Age 
APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE IN 2006–07 

— 144 — 

Table E-9.—Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant recipients by class 

Table E-9.—level, dependency and parental income of dependent students, and percentage of ACG and 

Table E-9.—SMART Grant recipients as a percentage of total Pell Grants: 2006–07

Inde- Less than $15,000– More than

Class level pendent Dependent $15,000 30,000 $30,000

Number of grants

First- and second-year students

ACG recipients 12,049 287,533 84,029 98,994 104,482 

Pell Grant-only recipients 1,587,333 1,085,175 436,811 375,714 272,614 

Total Pell Grant recipients 1,599,382 1,372,708 520,840 474,708 377,096 

Third- and fourth-year students

SMART Grant recipients 25,333 36,971 11,639 12,103 13,226 

Pell Grant-only recipients 703,848 501,261 175,347 172,064 153,816 

Pell Grant recipients 729,181 538,232 186,986 184,167 167,042 

Percentage distribution of grants

First- and second-year students

ACG recipients 4.0 96.0 29.2 34.4 36.3

Pell Grant-only recipients 59.4 40.6 40.3 34.6 25.1

Total Pell Grant recipients 53.8 46.2 37.9 34.6 27.5

Third- and fourth-year students

SMART Grant recipients 40.7 59.3 31.5 32.7 35.8

Pell Grant-only recipients 58.4 41.6 35.0 34.3 30.7

Total Pell Grant recipients 57.5 42.5 34.7 34.2 31.0

ACGs and SMART Grants as percent

 of Pell Grants

First- and second-year students

 ACGs as percent of Pell Grants 0.8 20.9 16.1 20.9 27.7

Third- and fourth-year students

 SMART Grants as percent of Pell Grants 3.5 6.9 6.2 6.6 7.9

NOTE: This table is based on unduplicated records. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants, but 

student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions and greater than 5 at 

four-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by class level, but included in the totals. Missing values 

are excluded, so there will be small differences in the totals for gender, citizenship, age, dependency, income, and EFC. 

Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).

Dependency Income of dependent students’ parents
APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE IN 2006–07 

— 145 — 

Table E-10.

—Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant recipients by class level, dependency, and Expected Family 

Table E-10.—Contribution (EFC), and percentage of ACG and SMART Grant recipients as a percentage of total Pell Grants: 2006–07

1,000– 2,000– 3,000 1,000– 2,000– 3,000

Class level Zero 1–999 1,999 2,999 or more Zero 1–999 1,999 2,999 or moreNumber of grantsFirst- and second-year students

ACG recipients 96,163 63,144 48,782 45,273 34,171 9,621 1,154 680 404 190 Pell Grant-only recipients 527,816 213,809 139,737 120,101 83,712 981,919 215,736 192,442 127,467 69,769 

Total Pell Grant recipients 623,979 276,953 188,519 165,374 117,883 991,540 216,890 193,122 127,871 69,959 

Third- and fourth-year students

SMART Grant recipients 10,636 9,223 6,205 6,045 4,862 13,427 4,019 3,420 2,741 1,726 Pell Grant-only recipients 181,221 116,712 74,714 72,108 56,506 385,071 104,397 94,649 73,438 46,293 Total Pell Grant recipients 191,857 125,935 80,919 78,153 61,368 398,498 108,416 98,069 76,179 48,019 

Percentage distribution of grantsFirst- and second-year students

ACG recipients 33.4 22.0 17.0 15.7 11.9 79.8 9.6 5.6 3.4 1.6

Pell Grant-only recipients 48.6 19.7 12.9 11.1 7.7 61.9 13.6 12.1 8.0 4.4Total Pell Grant recipients 45.5 20.2 13.7 12.0 8.6 62.0 13.6 12.1 8.0 4.4

Third- and fourth-year students

SMART Grant recipients 28.8 24.9 16.8 16.4 13.2 53.0 15.9 13.5 10.8 6.8

Pell Grant-only recipients 36.2 23.3 14.9 14.4 11.3 54.7 14.8 13.4 10.4 6.6Total Pell Grant recipients 35.6 23.4 15.0 14.5 11.4 54.7 14.9 13.4 10.4 6.6

ACGs and SMART Grants as 

 percent of Pell Grants

First- and second-year students

 ACGs as percent of Pell Grants 15.4 22.8 25.9 27.4 29.0 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3

Third- and fourth-year students

 SMART Grants as percent  of Pell Grants 5.5 7.3 7.7 7.7 7.9 3.4 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.6

NOTE: This table is based on unduplicated records. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants, but student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions and greater than 5 at four-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by class level, but included in the totals. The federal Expected 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 as an index number and is used to determine Pell Grant amount. Missing values are excluded, so there will be small differences in the totals for gender, citizenship, age, dependency, income, and EFC. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007).

EFC of dependent students EFC of independent students 
APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE IN 2006–07 

— 146 — 

Table E-11.—Average amounts of Expected Family Contribution (EFC), income of dependent students’ 

Table E-11.—parents, Pell Grant, ACG, SMART Grant, and combined total grants of ACG, SMART Grant, 

Table E-11.—and Pell Grant recipients, by class level: 2006–07

EFC of EFC of Income of ACG/ Combined

inde- depen- dependent Pell SMART total

pendent dent students’ Grant Grant grant

Class level students students parents amount amount amount

First- and second-year students

ACG recipients 261 1,140 24,708 2,782 791 3,573

Pell Grant-only recipients 596 802 20,071 2,334 — 2,334

Third- and fourth-year students

SMART Grant recipients 780 1,205 24,205 2,871 3,251 6,122

Pell Grant-only recipients 757 1,048 22,330 2,610 — 2,610

— Not applicable.

NOTE: This table is based on unduplicated records. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants, but 

student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions and greater than 5 at 

four-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by class level, but included in the totals. 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 as an index number and is used to determine the Pell Grant amount. Missing values are excluded, so there will be 

small differences in the totals for gender, citizenship, age, dependency, income, and EFC.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).
APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE IN 2006–07 

— 147 — 

Table E-12.

—Number of grants, total dollar amounts, and average grant amounts awarded to dependent students with ACGs or SMART Grants, 

Table E-12.—by Expected Family Contribution (EFC) of the students: 2006–07

Percent of

combined

Combined Percent Percent total Pell Average

Total Total total Pell of total of total Grant Pell Average Average

Number Pell Grant ACG Grant and Pell Grant ACG and ACG Grant ACG combined

EFC of ACGs amount amount ACG amount amount amount amount amount amount amount

Total dependent students 289,451 796,448,798 229,553,917 1,026,002,715 100.0 100.0 100.0 2,754 793 3,547Zero 96,709 367,821,780 73,799,383 441,621,163 46.2 32.1 43.0 3,807 763 4,5701–999 63,591 220,277,810 51,388,018 271,665,828 27.7 22.4 26.5 3,467 808 4,275

1,000–1,999 49,162 119,031,968 39,389,860 158,421,828 14.9 17.2 15.4 2,423 801 3,2252,000–2,999 45,587 67,589,830 36,959,264 104,549,094 8.5 16.1 10.2 1,484 811 2,2953,000 or more 34,402 21,727,410 28,017,392 49,744,802 2.7 12.2 4.8 632 814 1,447

Percent of

combined

Combined Percent total Pell

Total total Pell Percent of total Grant and Average Average

Number of Total SMART Grant and of total SMART SMART Pell SMART Average

SMART Pell Grant Grant SMART Grant Pell Grant Grant Grant Grant Grant combined

EFC Grants amount amount amount amount amount amount amount amount amountTotal dependent students 36,997 101,808,321 122,539,597 224,347,918 100.0 100.0 100.0 2,752 3,312 6,064

Zero 10,647 41,550,903 34,489,744 76,040,647 40.8 28.1 33.9 3,903 3,239 7,142

1–999 9,226 32,790,529 30,731,172 63,521,701 32.2 25.1 28.3 3,554 3,331 6,8851,000–1,999 6,210 15,325,576 20,879,550 36,205,126 15.1 17.0 16.1 2,468 3,362 5,830

2,000–2,999 6,050 9,070,497 20,202,689 29,273,186 8.9 16.5 13.0 1,500 3,339 4,839

3,000 or more 4,864 3,070,816 16,236,442 19,307,258 3.0 13.2 8.6 631 3,338 3,970

NOTE: 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 an an index number and is used to determine the Pell Grant amount.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007).

ACGs

SMART Grants
APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE IN 2006–07 

— 148 — 

Table E-13.

—Number and percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by field of study and type of institution attended: 2006–07

MultiLife Computer Physical disciplinary Foreign

Type of institution Total sciences Engineering science sciences Mathematics Technology studies language

Number of grants

Total 62,371 23,771 13,199 9,787 6,046 4,217 3,045 1,697 609 Public four-year 42,191 17,074 10,054 4,201 4,442 2,947 2,162 968 343 Private nonprofit four-year 16,271 6,689 3,118 2,310 1,603 1,270 286 729 266 For-profit four-year 3,909 8 27 3,276 1 0 597 0 0 

Percentage distribution of grants within type of institution

Total 100.0 38.1 21.2 15.7 9.7 6.8 4.9 2.7 1.0

Public four-year 100.0 40.5 23.8 10.0 10.5 7.0 5.1 2.3 0.8

Private nonprofit four-year 100.0 41.1 19.2 14.2 9.9 7.8 1.8 4.5 1.6

For-profit four-year 100.0 0.2 0.7 83.8 0.0 0.0 15.3 0.0 0.0

Percentage distribution of grants by type of institution

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Public four-year 67.6 71.8 76.2 42.9 73.5 69.9 71.0 57.0 56.3Private nonprofit four-year 26.1 28.1 23.6 23.6 26.5 30.1 9.4 43.0 43.7For-profit four-year 6.3 0.0 0.2 33.5 0.0 0.0 19.6 0.0 0.0

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007).

Field of study
— 149 —

APPENDIX F 

Supplemental Tables on High School Course Work 
APPENDIX F. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON HIGH SCHOOL COURSE WORK

— 150 — 

Table F-1.

—Percentage of high school graduates who completed the ED course-based high school curriculum, by family income, socioeconomic 

Table F-1.—status, total number of credits earned in AP or IB courses, and postsecondary status a year later: 2004

Three years of

Three years of science (including

All course work mathematics at least two

requirements (including courses from One year of

except for algebra I biology, Three years of language

All course work foreign Four years and a higher- chemistry, social other

Characteristic requirementsa language of English level course) or physics) studies than English

 Total 43.8 46.4 80.2 79.3 62.0 91.5 81.2

Family incomeb

$35,000 or less 33.8 37.4 81.5 73.4 49.4 90.2 72.5

$35,001–$75,000 43.2 45.7 79.5 78.4 63.0 92.2 80.8

More than $75,000 55.3 56.7 80.0 87.0 73.9 92.1 90.9

Family incomeb

$50,000 or less 36.1 39.3 80.7 74.1 53.4 90.6 74.5

More than $50,000 51.3 53.2 79.8 84.4 70.4 92.5 87.7

Socioeconomic status

Lowest quartile 30.3 34.3 80.9 69.6 45.8 89.1 68.5

Second quartile 37.4 39.9 79.4 74.2 54.8 91.0 75.7

Third quartile 45.7 48.4 80.0 82.0 65.5 92.8 84.7

Highest quartile 58.3 59.6 80.7 89.0 78.0 92.7 92.8

Total AP/IB course creditsc

Two or more 72.0 72.8 84.9 95.4 88.9 95.7 98.4

Less than two 37.6 40.5 79.2 75.8 56.1 90.6 77.4

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.
APPENDIX F. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON HIGH SCHOOL COURSE WORK

— 151 — 

Table F-1.

—Percentage of high school graduates who completed the ED course-based high school curriculum, by family income, socioeconomic 

Table F-1.—status, total number of credits earned in AP or IB courses, and postsecondary status a year later: 2004—Continued

Three years of

Three years of science (including

All course work mathematics at least two

requirements (including courses from One year of

except for algebra I biology, Three years of language

All course work foreign Four years and a higher- chemistry, social other

Characteristic requirementsa language of English level course) or physics) studies than English

Full-time postsecondary education participantsd

 Total 59.2 60.8 82.2 90.1 78.6 93.6 93.9

Family incomeb

$50,000 or less 54.3 56.2 83.5 87.6 73.2 93.2 91.5

More than $50,000 62.3 63.7 81.4 91.7 82.0 93.8 95.5

 Total 66.5 67.5 83.1 93.9 85.2 94.4 97.4

Family incomeb

$50,000 or less 63.4 64.5 84.4 91.9 82.4 94.2 96.6

More than $50,000 68.1 69.0 82.4 94.9 86.7 94.5 97.8

 Total 40.4 43.4 80.1 80.3 61.2 91.3 85.1

Family incomeb

$50,000 or less 39.1 42.0 82.2 80.5 57.1 91.4 82.5

More than $50,000 41.8 44.8 77.9 80.1 65.5 91.3 87.8

Among full-time students entering a four-year institution first

Among full-time students entering a two-year institution first

d High school graduates who entered postsecondary education within one year after completing high school and enrolled in a full-time degree program (however, the type 

of degree program is unknown).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002/2004), “First Follow-up, 2004.”

a

NOTE: The sample of this table includes high school graduates who received a regular, regents, or honors diploma and had a complete set of transcripts (defined as one that records at least 16 course credits with a positive nonzero number of credits completed in English).

 Requirements include four years of English, three years each of mathematics (including algebra I and higher), science (including at least two courses from biology, 

chemistry, or physics), social studies, and one year of foreign language.

b Parents’ reported total family income from all sources in 2001.c “Course credits” refer to standardized Carnegie units. A Carnegie unit is a standard of measurement used for secondary education that represents the completion of a 

course that meets one period per day for one year. 
APPENDIX F. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON HIGH SCHOOL COURSE WORK

— 152 — 

Table F-2.

—Percentage of high school graduates who completed a rigorous high school program as defined in the State Scholars Initiative, b

y

Table F-2.—family income, socioeconomic status, total number of credits earned in AP or IB courses, and postsecondary status a year later: 2004

Three and a half

Rigorous Three years of years of social studies

high school mathematics Three years of (U.S. and world

programs (including lab science history, world Two years of

defined in the algebra I (biology, geography, language

State Scholars Four years and II and chemistry, economics, other than

Characteristic Initiativea of English geometry) and physics) and government) English

 Total 10.5 80.2 53.7 40.7 40.0 65.5

Family incomeb

$35,000 or less 7.5 81.5 47.4 28.6 40.2 53.0$35,001–$75,000 10.4 79.5 54.4 40.8 38.8 65.5

More than $75,000 13.8 80.0 59.3 53.4 41.7 78.6

Family incomeb

$50,000 or less 7.9 80.7 49.3 31.4 39.8 55.9More than $50,000 13.0 79.8 58.0 49.7 40.2 74.8

Socioeconomic status

Lowest quartile 6.5 80.9 43.4 23.6 40.5 48.7Second quartile 8.2 79.4 48.9 34.0 38.6 58.3Third quartile 10.5 80.0 58.3 42.5 39.0 69.4Highest quartile 15.6 80.7 61.7 58.5 41.9 81.4

Total AP/IB course creditsc

Two or more 23.6 84.9 63.5 75.2 53.0 92.7Less than two 7.6 79.2 51.6 33.2 37.2 59.5

Full-time postsecondary education participantsd

 Total 15.4 82.2 65.1 57.7 41.9 82.5

Family incomeb

$50,000 or less 13.1 83.5 64.4 49.3 42.8 76.6

More than $50,000 16.8 81.4 65.5 63.1 41.4 86.2

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.
APPENDIX F. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON HIGH SCHOOL COURSE WORK

— 153 — 

Table F-2.

—Percentage of high school graduates who completed a rigorous high school program as defined in the State Scholars Initiative, b

y

Table F-2.—family income, socioeconomic status, total number of credits earned in AP or IB courses, and postsecondary status a year later: 2004

Table F-2.——Continued

Three and a half

Rigorous Three years of years of social studies

high school mathematics Three years of (U.S. and world

programs (including lab science history, world Two years of

defined in the algebra I (biology, geography, language

 State Scholars Four years and II and chemistry, economics, other than

Characteristic Initiativea of English geometry) and physics) and government) English

 Total 18.2 83.1 68.3 66.6 43.1 88.6

Family incomeb

$50,000 or less 16.6 84.4 69.7 60.6 43.7 85.3

More than $50,000 19.1 82.4 67.5 69.7 42.8 90.3

 Total 7.9 80.1 56.9 34.7 38.8 66.7

Family incomeb

$50,000 or less 7.1 82.2 55.7 29.7 41.2 61.4More than $50,000 8.9 77.9 58.3 40.0 36.2 72.2

a

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:02).

 Requirements include four years of English; three years of mathematics (including algebra I and II and geometry); and of lab science (biology, chemistry, and physics); 

three and a half years of social studies from U.S. and world history, world geography, economics, and government; and two years of language other than English.

b Parents’ reported total family income from all sources in 2001. c “Course credits” refer to standardized Carnegie units. A Carnegie unit is a standard of measurement used for secondary education that represents the completion of a 

course that meets one period per day for one year. 

Among full-time students entering a four-year institution first

Among full-time students entering a two-year institution first

NOTE: The sample of this table includes high school graduates who received a regular, regents, or honors diploma and had a complete set of transcripts (defined as one 

d

that records at least 16 course credits with a positive nonzero number of credits completed in English).

 High school graduates who entered postsecondary education within one year after completing high school and enrolled in a full-time degree program (however, the type 

of degree program is unknown).
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
— 155 —

APPENDIX G 

Supplemental Tables on ACG and National SMART 

Grant Program Participation by State in 2006–07 
APPENDIX G. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY STATE IN 2006–07 

— 156 — 

Table G-1.—Number of first- and second-year students with Pell Grants and ACGs and percentage of Pell 

Table G-1.—Grant recipients with ACGs, by state of student’s residence: 2006–07 

Number of Percent of firstfirst- and Number of and secondsecond-year Pell Grant year Pell Grant

State of student’s students with students students

residence Pell Grants with ACGs with ACGs

 Total 2,940,492 299,701 10.2

Alabama 51,008 3,356 6.6

Alaska 3,814 126 3.3

Arizona 47,606 1,382 2.9

Arkansas 39,486 3,881 9.8

California 306,339 29,870 9.8

Colorado 36,515 3,100 8.5

Connecticut 22,056 2,235 10.1

Delaware 6,285 381 6.1

District of Columbia 3,784 406 10.7

Florida 161,977 15,098 9.3

Georgia 94,914 9,428 9.9

Hawaii 6,999 614 8.8

Idaho 15,226 1,542 10.1

Illinois 119,461 10,130 8.5

Indiana 70,767 7,561 10.7

Iowa 34,047 3,578 10.5

Kansas 26,288 2,775 10.6

Kentucky 52,927 4,642 8.8

Louisiana 45,303 6,318 13.9

Maine 11,916 2,029 17.0

Maryland 39,347 3,815 9.7

Massachusetts 42,589 6,769 15.9

Michigan 120,113 6,163 5.1

Minnesota 48,001 5,584 11.6

Mississippi 50,334 3,438 6.8

Missouri 56,910 5,029 8.8

Montana 10,117 1,117 11.0

Nebraska 19,429 3,039 15.6

Nevada 7,759 663 8.5

New Hampshire 7,508 1,052 14.0

New Jersey 65,453 8,014 12.2

New Mexico 25,500 1,075 4.2

New York 200,092 24,206 12.1

North Carolina 94,639 10,339 10.9

North Dakota 6,837 1,039 15.2

Ohio 130,778 14,291 10.9

Oklahoma 38,354 4,328 11.3

Oregon 31,465 2,339 7.4

Pennsylvania 100,173 15,962 15.9

Puerto Rico 97,988 11,571 11.8

Rhode Island 7,847 803 10.2

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.
APPENDIX G. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY STATE IN 2006–07 

— 157 — 

Table G-1.—Number of first- and second-year students with Pell Grants and ACGs and percentage of Pell 

Table G-1.—Grant recipients with ACGs, by state of student’s residence: 2006–07—Continued 

Number of Percent of firstfirst- and Number of and secondsecond-year Pell Grant year Pell Grant

State of student’s students with students students

residence Pell Grants with ACGs with ACGs

South Carolina 49,844 5,202 10.4

South Dakota 8,482 1,232 14.5

Tennessee 59,854 5,919 9.9

Texas 256,210 28,704 11.2

Utah 21,834 689 3.2

Vermont 4,947 759 15.3

Virginia 54,678 5,412 9.9

Washington 47,107 3,356 7.1

West Virginia 18,238 1,660 9.1

Wisconsin 47,357 6,126 12.9

Wyoming 4,050 359 8.9

All others 9,940 1,195 12.0

NOTE: This table is based on unduplicated records. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants, but 

student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions and greater than 5 at 

four-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by class level.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007).
APPENDIX G. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY STATE IN 2006–07 

— 158 — 

Table G-2.—Number of first- and second-year students at two-year institutions with Pell Grants and ACGs 

Table G-2.—and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, by state of student’s residence: 2006–07 

Number of Percent of firstfirst- and Number of and secondsecond-year Pell Grant year Pell Grant

State of student’s students with students students

residence Pell Grants with ACGs with ACGs

 Total 1,525,631 37,768 2.5

Oklahoma 18,261 1,008 5.5

Florida 55,076 3,006 5.5

Wyoming 2,781 149 5.4

North Dakota 2,421 128 5.3

Texas 151,942 7,888 5.2

Nebraska 10,610 465 4.4

Montana 2,880 121 4.2

Arkansas 20,246 814 4.0

Alabama 28,064 1,070 3.8

Tennessee 27,797 1,058 3.8

Louisiana 17,045 618 3.6

Mississippi 37,296 1,337 3.6

South Dakota 2,543 89 3.5

New York 91,791 3,181 3.5

Kansas 14,953 487 3.3

District of Columbia 418 13 3.1

New Jersey 37,213 1,135 3.1

Puerto Rico 15,354 461 3.0

Missouri 28,404 820 2.9

New Hampshire 2,784 76 2.7

All others 4,683 123 2.6

South Carolina 28,768 704 2.4

Pennsylvania 47,132 1,059 2.2

North Carolina 57,262 1,229 2.1

Virginia 30,459 631 2.1

Minnesota 26,864 556 2.1

Wisconsin 25,177 511 2.0

Maine 4,063 82 2.0

Maryland 22,762 452 2.0

Georgia 40,935 766 1.9

Massachusetts 22,685 407 1.8

Iowa 21,881 383 1.8

Alaska 321 5 1.6

Indiana 30,267 468 1.5

Ohio 67,295 1,035 1.5

Illinois 71,084 1,084 1.5

Idaho 4,396 66 1.5

West Virginia 5,732 82 1.4

Delaware 3,537 47 1.3

Hawaii 2,928 36 1.2

Kentucky 27,972 317 1.1

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table.
APPENDIX G. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY STATE IN 2006–07 

— 159 — 

Table G-2.—Number of first- and second-year students at two-year institutions with Pell Grants and ACGs 

Table G-2.—and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, by state of student’s residence: 2006–07 

Table G-2.——Continued

Number of Percent of firstfirst- and Number of and secondsecond-year Pell Grant year Pell Grant

State of student’s students with students students

residence Pell Grants with ACGs with ACGs

Oregon 21,272 233 1.1

California 210,343 2,244 1.1

New Mexico 10,595 111 1.0

Utah 6,517 67 1.0

Vermont 2,151 22 1.0

Nevada 2,071 21 1.0

Arizona 31,987 238 0.7

Michigan 62,413 457 0.7

Washington 29,276 207 0.7

Connecticut 12,572 82 0.7

Colorado 18,502 102 0.6

Rhode Island 3,850 17 0.4

(Sept. 21, 2007).

NOTE: This table is based on unduplicated records. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants, but 

student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions were excluded.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement

and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering 

educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov