U.S.
DEPARTMENT
OF
EDUCATION



Academic
Competitiveness
and


National
SMART
Grant
Programs:


2006–07
and
2007–08

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Academic Competitiveness and 

National SMART Grant Programs: 

2006–07 and 2007–08 

Susan P. Choy 

Lutz Berkner 

Xiaojie Li 

Jennie Woo 

MPR Associates, Inc. 

John Lee
 

Amy Topper 

JBL Associates 

For
 

U.S Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

2010 
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 website 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 website 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

Arne Duncan

Secretary

Office of the Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Carmel Martin

Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Alan Ginsburg

Director

September 2010

This report is in the public domain. The cover 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: 2006–07 and 2007–08.

Washington, D.C., 2010.

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

 

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For 

more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818.
Contents 

Page
 

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

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

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

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

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

Purpose and History of the Academic Competitiveness Grant and National SMART Grant 

Programs ............................................................................................................................. 1 

Purpose of This Study............................................................................................................ 3 

Data ........................................................................................................................................ 4 

Chapter 2. History of the Concerns Surrounding the ACG and National SMART Grant 

Legislation and Implementation Update ................................................................................. 5
 

Background ............................................................................................................................ 5 

Continuing Controversy on the Design and Purpose of the Legislation................................ 8 

Changes in the Programs ....................................................................................................... 9 

Resolution of the Statutory and Regulatory Concerns Expressed by Stakeholders ............... 10 

Concerns Raised During the Second Award Year, 2007–08 ................................................. 12 

Current Status of Legislation and Regulations ...................................................................... 16 

Stakeholders’ Perspectives ..................................................................................................... 17 

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 20 

Chapter 3. ACG and National SMART Grant Program Participation and Awareness..... 23
 

ACG Program Participation ................................................................................................... 25 

National SMART Grant Program Participation ..................................................................... 42 

Student Awareness of the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs .............................. 57 

Change in STEM Majors ....................................................................................................... 62 

Chapter 4. ACG, National SMART, and Pell Grant Renewals............................................. 65 

ACG Program Renewals ........................................................................................................ 65 

National SMART Grant Program Renewals.......................................................................... 67 

Pell Grant Renewals............................................................................................................... 70 

— iii — 
CONTENTS 

Page
 

References ................................................................................................................................... 75 

Appendix A. National SMART Grant–Eligible Majors......................................................... 81 

Appendix B. Recognized Rigorous High School Programs ................................................... 89
 

Appendix C. Data Sources ........................................................................................................ 93
 

Appendix D. Supplemental Tables on ACG and National SMART Grant Program
 

Participation by Type of Institution: 2007–08......................................................................... 95
 

Appendix E. Supplemental Tables on ACG and National SMART Grant Program
 

Participation by State: 2007–08................................................................................................117 

Appendix F. Change in STEM Majors From 2003–04 to 2007–08 .......................................121 

Appendix G. Program Participation, Department of Education Goals, and Estimates 

of Eligibility ................................................................................................................................129 

Appendix H. History of the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs .........................133
 

— iv — 
Figures
 

Figure	 Page 

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

by type of institution attended: 2006–07 and 2007–08 .................................................... xxii 

B Percentage distribution of 2006–07 first-year ACG recipients by ACG and Pell Grant 

receipt status in 2007–08, by type of institution..............................................................xxiii 

C Percentage distribution of 2006–07 third-year SMART Grant recipients by SMART 

Grant and Pell Grant receipt status in 2007–08, by type of institution ............................xxvi 

D Percentage of Pell Grant–only and ACG or SMART Grant recipients who received 

another Pell Grant in 2007–08, by class level in 2006–07 ........................................... xxviii 

1 Percentage of eligible institutions awarding ACGs, by type of institution: 2006–07 

and 2007–08..................................................................................................................... 26 

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

by type of institution attended: 2006–07 and 2007–08 .................................................... 27 

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

and average amount received: 2006–07 and 2007–08 ..................................................... 29 

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

number of ACGs awarded: 2006–07 and 2007–08.......................................................... 30 

5 Percentage distribution of ACG recipients by class level: 2006–07 and 2007–08 .......... 31 

6 Percentage distribution of ACG recipients and students who received Pell Grants only
 

at ACG-participating institutions by age: 2006–07 and 2007–08 ................................... 32 

7 Percentage distribution of dependent ACG recipients and dependent students who 

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

2006–07 and 2007–08...................................................................................................... 33 

8 Percentage of dependent first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients at ACGparticipating institutions who received an ACG, by Expected Family Contribution: 

2006–07 and 2007–08...................................................................................................... 34 

9 Average Pell Grant and ACG amounts awarded to dependent first- and secondyear students with ACGs, by Expected Family Contribution: 2006–07 and 2007–08 .... 35 

— v — 
FIGURES 

Figure	 Page 

10 Percentage distributions of Pell Grant, ACG, and combined dollars for dependent 

first- and second-year students by Expected Family Contribution: 2006–07 and 

2007–08............................................................................................................................ 37 

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

2006–07 and 2007–08...................................................................................................... 38 

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

type of institution: 2006–07 and 2007–08 ....................................................................... 43 

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

received and average amount received: 2006–07 and 2007–08 ...................................... 45 

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

the number of SMART Grant recipients: 2006–07 and 2007–08 .................................... 46 

15 Percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by class level: 2006–07 and 

2007–08............................................................................................................................ 47 

16 Percentages of SMART Grant recipients and of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant–
 

only recipients at SMART Grant–participating institutions who were male and who 

were age 24 or older: 2006–07 and 2007–08 ................................................................... 48 

17 Of dependent SMART Grant recipients and dependent third- and fourth-year students 

who received Pell Grants only at SMART Grant–participating institutions, percentage
 

distribution by parents’ income: 2006–07 and 2007–08.................................................. 49 

18 Percentage of dependent third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients at SMART 

Grant–participating institutions who received a SMART Grant, by Expected Family
 

Contribution: 2006–07 and 2007–08 ............................................................................... 50 

19 Average Pell and SMART Grant amounts awarded to dependent third- and fourthyear students with SMART Grants, by Expected Family Contribution: 2006–07 and 

2007–08............................................................................................................................ 52 

20 Percentage distributions of Pell Grant, SMART Grant, and combined dollars for
 

dependent third- and fourth-year students by Expected Family Contribution: 2006–07 

and 2007–08..................................................................................................................... 53 

21 Percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by field of study: 2006–07 and 

2007–08............................................................................................................................ 54 

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

2006–07 and 2007–08...................................................................................................... 55 

— vi — 
FIGURES 

Figure	 Page 

23 Percentage distribution of 2006–07 first-year ACG recipients by ACG and Pell Grant 

receipt status in 2007–08 ................................................................................................. 66 

24 Percentage distribution of 2006–07 first-year ACG recipients by ACG and Pell Grant 

receipt status in 2007–08, by type of institution.............................................................. 67 

25 Percentage distribution of 2006–07 third-year SMART Grant recipients by SMART 

Grant and Pell Grant receipt status in 2007–08 ............................................................... 68 

26 Percentage distribution of 2006–07 third-year SMART Grant recipients by SMART 

Grant and Pell Grant receipt status in 2007–08, by type of institution ............................ 69 

27 Percentage of 2006–07 third-year SMART Grant recipients who received another 

SMART Grant in 2007–08, by field of study .................................................................. 70 

28 Percentage of Pell Grant–only and ACG or SMART Grant recipients who received 

another Pell Grant in 2007–08, by class level in 2006–07 .............................................. 71 

29 Percentage of 2006–07 fourth-year SMART Grant recipients who received a Pell 

Grant in 2007–08, by field of study................................................................................. 73 

— vii — 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Tables 

Table	 Page 

A Number of undergraduates, numbers of Pell Grant, ACG, and SMART Grant 

recipients, and number and percent change: 2006–07 and 2007–08 ............................... xxi 

1 Key milestones in the history of the legislation, regulations, and Department 

of Education guidance...................................................................................................... 6 

2 Development and resolution of salient concerns about eligibility requirements for
 

ACGs and National SMART Grants................................................................................ 11 

3 Stakeholder organizations................................................................................................ 17
 

4 Possible effects of legislative and economic changes and stakeholder efforts ................ 20 

5 Number of undergraduates, numbers of Pell Grant, ACG, and SMART Grant 

recipients, and number and percent change: 2006–07 and 2007–08 ............................... 24 

6 Number of first- and second-year students at four-year ACG-participating institutions 

with Pell Grants and number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, by
 

state of student’s residence: 2006–07 and 2007–08 ....................................................... 39 

7 Number of first- and second-year students at two-year ACG-participating institutions 

with Pell Grants and number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, by
 

state of student’s residence: 2006–07 and 2007–08 ........................................................ 41 

8 Number of third- and fourth-year students at SMART Grant–participating institutions 

with Pell Grants and number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with SMART 

Grants, by state of student’s residence: 2006–07 and 2007–08 ....................................... 56 

9 Percentage of potentially eligible students who had heard of ACGs, by source, and 

percentage who had heard of SMART Grants, by student characteristics and type of 

institution: 2007–08 ......................................................................................................... 59 

10 Among potentially eligible students who had heard of ACGs and SMART Grants, 

percentage who were aware of each requirement, by student characteristics, type of 

institution, and source of information: 2007–08.............................................................. 60 

D-1	 Number and percentage of eligible institutions participating in the ACG and SMART 

Grant programs by type of institution: 2007–08.............................................................. 96 

— ix — 
TABLES 

Table	 Page 

D-2	 Number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs or SMART Grants at 

participating institutions: 2007–08 .................................................................................. 97 

D-3	 Average number of Pell Grants, ACGs, and SMART Grants at participating
 

institutions: 2007–08........................................................................................................ 98 

D-4	 Number and percentage distribution of institutions participating in ACG and SMART 

Grant programs by the number of grant recipients: 2007–08 .......................................... 99 

D-5	 Number and percentage distribution of institutions participating in ACG and SMART 

Grant programs by the percentage of Pell Grant recipients who also received ACGs or 

SMART Grants: 2007–08................................................................................................101 

D-6	 Number and percentage distribution of ACGs and Pell Grants by class level and 

percentage of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients with ACGs: 2007–08 ...........103 

D-7	 Number and percentage distribution of SMART Grants and total Pell Grants by class 

level and percentage of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients with SMART 

Grants: 2007–08...............................................................................................................104 

D-8	 Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant 

recipients by gender, citizenship, and age and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with
 

ACGs or SMART Grants: 2007–08 .................................................................................105 

D-9	 Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant 

recipients by dependency and income and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with
 

ACGs or SMART Grants: 2007–08 .................................................................................106 

D-10	 Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant 

recipients by Expected Family Contribution and percentage of Pell Grant recipients
 

with ACGs or SMART Grants: 2007–08.........................................................................107 

D-11	 Average amounts of Expected Family Contribution, income of dependent students’ 

parents, and average Pell Grant, ACG, and SMART Grant amounts: 

2007–08............................................................................................................................108 

D-12	 Number of grants, total dollar amounts, and average grant amounts awarded to 

dependent students with ACGs or SMART Grants, by Expected Family Contribution 

of the students: 2007–08 ..................................................................................................109 

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

2007–08............................................................................................................................110 

D-14	 Among students who received an ACG in 2006–07, number and percentage who 

received an ACG, SMART Grant, or Pell Grant one year later in 2007–08 ...................111 

— x — 
TABLES 

Table	 Page 

D-15	 Among students who received a SMART Grant in 2006–07, number and percentage 

who received a SMART or Pell Grant one year later in 2007–08...................................112 

D-16	 Among students who received a SMART Grant in 2006–07, number and percentage 

who received a SMART or Pell Grant one year later in 2007–08, by class level and 

field of study in 2006–07 .................................................................................................113 

D-17	 Among students at ACG- or SMART Grant–participating institutions who received 

Pell Grants only in 2006–07, number and percentage who received a Pell Grant one 

year later in 2007–08, by ACG or SMART Grant status in 2006–07 .............................114 

D-18	 Number and percentage of students at ACG- or SMART Grant–participating
 

institutions who received Pell Grants only in 2006–07 and their ACG, SMART, or 

Pell Grant status one year later in 2007–08 .....................................................................115 

E-1 Number of first- and second-year students at ACG-participating institutions with Pell 

Grants and number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, by state of 

student’s residence: 2006–07 and 2007–08 .....................................................................118 

F-1	 Total number of undergraduates and the number and percentage of them who were in 

STEM majors, by student and institutional characteristics: 2003–04 and 2007–08 ........122 

F-2	 Total number of Pell Grant recipients and the number and percentage of them who 

were in STEM majors, by student and institutional characteristics: 2003–04 and 

2007–08............................................................................................................................124 

F-3	 Total number of beginning postsecondary students at four- and two-year institutions 

who were recent high school graduates and number and the percentage of them who 

were Pell Grant recipients, by student and institutional characteristics: 2003–04 and 

2007–08............................................................................................................................126 

G-1	 Beginning postsecondary students who met various ACG requirements: 2003–04 ........131 

— xi — 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 

Acknowledgments 

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of many individuals to the production of this 

report. Margaret Cahalan in the Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) and David Goodwin, 

formerly of PPSS, provided many helpful comments, as did Alan Ginsburg, director of PPSS. 

David Bergeron and Sophia McArdle in the Office of Postsecondary Education, Stefanie 

Schmidt in the Institute of Education Sciences, and Lauren Wallzer in the Budget Service, also 

conducted careful reviews and provided useful feedback. Kathleen Wicks of Federal Student Aid 

provided the data files on grant awards and answered questions. Edward Ohnemus in the 

Department’s Office of Communication and Outreach reviewed the report for publication. 

At MPR Associates, Xiaojie Li provided the programming for the tables. Production of the report 

was supervised by Barbara Kridl, edited by Andrea Livingston, and formatted by Alicia 

Broadway. 

— xiii — 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 

 

Executive Summary 

Purpose and History of the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and 

National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) Grant 

Programs 

The Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005, signed into law in February 2006, created two 

new grant programs for low-income students—the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) for 

first- and second-year students and the National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain 

Talent (National SMART) Grant for third- and fourth-year students. The ACG program is 

intended to encourage students to take challenging courses in high school and attend college fulltime, thus increasing their likelihood of succeeding in college. The National SMART Grant 

program is intended to encourage students to pursue college majors considered to be in high 

demand in the global economy (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and 

languages deemed critical to the national interest.1

 Congress provided $4.5 billion over five years 

for these programs, and the first grants were awarded in 2006–07. Unless reauthorized, both 

programs will end after the 2010–11 academic year. 

Initially, to be eligible for either grant program, students had to qualify for a Federal Pell Grant,2 

enroll full-time, and be a U.S. citizen. First-year students meeting these conditions were eligible 

for an ACG up to $750 (depending on their financial need) if they graduated from high school 

after Jan. 1, 2006, completed a rigorous high school program (as defined by the U.S. Department 

of Education), and enrolled in a degree program at a two- or four-year institution of higher 

education. 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 3.03 at the end of their first year of college. Third- and fourth-year 

students with eligible majors at four-year institutions could receive a National SMART Grant 

worth up to $4,000 if they started with and maintained a cumulative GPA of at least 3.0. 

The Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (H.R. 5715), signed into law in 

May 2008, expanded eligibility for the ACG and National SMART Grant programs to include 

part-time students and noncitizen permanent residents starting in January 2009. It also opened up 

the ACG program to students enrolled in certificate programs lasting a year or longer at a degree1

 Appendix A includes a complete list of eligible majors.
 2

 The Federal Pell Grant Program provides need-based grants to low-income undergraduates and can be used at any
 

one of approximately 5,400 participating postsecondary institutions. The program is described in detail at: 

http://www.ed.gov/programs/fpg/index.html. 3

 On a 4.0 scale or the numeric equivalent.
 

— xv — 
 

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

granting institution. The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (H.R. 4137), enacted in 

August 2008, further modified the programs. It gave states increased control to define rigorous 

secondary school programs of study (rather than leaving the definition up to the secretary of 

education) and delayed implementation of the eligibility changes until July 2009. Consequently, 

the expanded eligibility will first affect students enrolling in the 2009–10 academic year. 

Students enrolled during the first three years of the program (2006–07 through 2008–09) were 

subject to the original requirements. 

Study Questions and Data Sources 

The Department of Education is vitally interested in whether the financial incentives provided by 

the grants affect student behavior. That is, will the ACGs induce more economically 

disadvantaged high school students to complete a rigorous high school program and enroll and 

succeed in postsecondary education? Will the National SMART Grants motivate more students 

to major and receive degrees in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and critical 

languages? It is still too early to answer these questions definitively. Students currently in their 

final years of high school may not have had enough time to take all the required courses and 

prerequisites, and students already in college may be well-established in other majors and not 

have the foundation needed to select one of the qualifying majors even if they wanted to. 

However, using data for the first two years of the programs, academic years 2006–07 and 

2007–08, this report addresses a number of questions about indicators of intermediate progress 

toward achieving the long-term goals of the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. The 

following are key study questions: 

	 How have the legislation, regulations, and implementation of the programs changed? 

	 What percentage of students who met the Pell Grant requirement for ACG and National 

SMART Grant eligibility also received an ACG or a National SMART Grant, and is this 

percentage increasing over time? 

	 What percentages of students who obtained 2006–07 ACGs and National SMART Grants 

were eligible for and received renewed awards the following year? 

	 What evidence is there that students were aware of the ACGs and National SMART 

Grants and knew what the requirements were? 

	 Is there any evidence to suggest that students who received ACGs or National SMART 

Grants were more likely to persist in college than students who received Pell Grants 

only? 

— xvi — 
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The first report of this study, Academic Competitiveness and National SMART Grant Programs: 

First-Year Lessons Learned (U.S. Department of Education 2009), addressed questions about the 

numbers and characteristics of students participating in the Pell Grant, ACG, and National 

SMART Grant programs in 2006–07 (using the COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File 

maintained by the office of Federal Student Aid). It also analyzed historical data and used 

information gathered from stakeholders in focus groups and through published sources (public 

comments on proposed regulations, publications, and websites) to describe implementation 

concerns and legislative and regulatory actions taken to address the concerns. 

This report updates the first report. It compares student participation in the Pell Grant, ACG, and 

National SMART Grant programs in 2007–08 with 2006–07. The report also presents 

information on renewal rates—that is, how many students who received an ACG or National 

SMART Grant in 2006–07 received another one in 2007–08. Finally, it includes an analysis of 

data on program awareness collected through the student interview administered as part of the 

2007–08 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:08). 

Note that the numbers of Pell Grants, ACGs, and National SMART Grants reported here may not 

exactly match numbers reported elsewhere. The FSA files used to generate the participation data 

are updated continuously with data from institutions on disbursements and cancellations so the 

exact number of awards varies slightly from day to day. By September, however, most financial 

aid data for the previous academic year have been finalized so differences between the numbers 

reported here and in other publications using data generated in September or later should be 

minor. Note that, unless otherwise indicated, the Pell Grant totals reported here are limited to 

recipients at institutions participating in the ACG or National SMART Grant programs and 

therefore are lower than Pell Grant totals reported elsewhere. Additional Pell Grant recipients 

can be found at less-than-two-year institutions and at two- and four-year institutions that made 

no ACG or National SMART Grant awards and therefore are not included in this report. 

Addressing Initial Year Implementation Issues: Legislative Changes and 

Implementation of the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs 

Examining whether and how the legislation, regulations, and the implementation of the programs 

have changed over time helps to provide a context for subsequent questions concerning program 

eligibility and participation. As awareness of the program spread, as greater clarity on program 

requirements helped institutions identify eligible students, and as the initial eligibility 

requirements were broadened, more students would be expected to participate. 

The ACG and National SMART Grant programs were signed into law in February 2006, while 

the first grants were awarded for the 2006–07 academic year. This timing posed significant 

challenges for the U.S. Department of Education, colleges and universities, students and their 

— xvii — 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

families, and other stakeholders. In a short time period, the Department had to publicize the 

programs, develop interim regulations, and set up processes to disburse funds, and institutions 

had to identify and verify eligible students and incorporate the new awards into students’ aid 

packages. 

Although stakeholders generally supported the intent of the programs, many were initially 

frustrated by the lack of awareness about the programs, the administrative burdens put on 

institutions and staff, and confusion over how the programs should be implemented. Some of the 

difficulties were eased during the first year of the program as the Department made it easier to 

identify eligible students by clarifying language in the regulations related to issues such as how 

to compute GPAs, define the academic year, and establish a student’s academic major. 

Nevertheless, some concerns remained, 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. 

Many of the concerns expressed by stakeholders in the first year of administering the grants were 

addressed with clarifications in the final regulations and in the Higher Education Opportunity 

Act of 2008 (H.R. 4137). The new legislation expanded eligibility for the programs to include a 

wider range of Pell Grant students. 

However, some stakeholders still have concerns about the administrative burden associated with 

correctly identifying students eligible for the financial awards who also met the rigorous 

secondary school curriculum and postsecondary GPA requirements. Especially when many 

colleges are facing cutbacks in staffing, many stakeholders view the processes for verifying 

certain aspects of student eligibility (the rigorous curriculum requirement for the ACG and the 

required minimum GPA for the ACGs and National SMART Grants) as unduly burdensome. 

Information on both grant programs is now more widely available. Many colleges and 

universities have posted information about these programs on their websites, and some 

stakeholder organizations continue to publish information for students and administrators on 

eligibility requirements and how to implement the grants at the institutional level. 

The U.S. Department of Education set a goal of doubling participation in both programs by 

2010–11. To achieve this goal, the Department asked states to promote the participation of lowincome students in rigorous high school courses, especially those that prepare them for majors 

that would make them eligible for National SMART Grants, and to support efforts to increase 

program awareness. In addition, the Department and others suggested strategies to improve the 

identification of eligible students and reduce the administrative burden associated with this task. 

— xviii — 
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

ACG Eligibility, Participation, and Awareness
 

In fall 2006, a total of 15.2 million undergraduates enrolled in degree-granting institutions, and 

5.2 million of them received a Pell Grant (Table A). Of these, 3.0 million were in their first or 

second year of college and therefore potentially eligible for an ACG. The Department of 

Education estimated that some 425,000 of these first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients 

would be eligible for an ACG,4 but actual participation has been lower. 

	 In the first year of the program, 301,700 students received an ACG. A combination of 

factors may account for the discrepancy between the actual and expected numbers, 

including a lack of awareness about the new programs, start-up difficulties common to all 

new programs, the difficulties that institutions had in identifying and verifying student 

eligibility, and the problem of accurately estimating the number of students meeting 

complex eligibility requirements with available data. 

	 In the second year of the program, the number of students receiving an ACG rose by 

97,000 (or 32 percent) to 398,700. Some of this increase reflects the 12 percent increase 

in Pell Grant awards to first- and second-year students at ACG-participating institutions 

(from 3.0 to 3.4 million), which expanded the pool of potentially eligible students. 

However, if the number of ACGs awarded had increased in proportion to the number of 

Pell Grants awarded (i.e., by 12 percent), only 339,000 (rather than 398,700) students 

would have received an ACG in 2007–08. This suggests that an additional 60,000 

students received ACGs in the second program for other reasons. More students may 

have met the qualifications or institutions may have identified more eligible students. In 

addition, the pool of potential recipients was expanded because, in 2007–08, students 

who delayed entering college for one year became eligible for the grant, while in 

2006–07, only immediate college entrants were eligible due to the requirement of high 

school graduation after Jan. 1, 2006. 

	 The increase in ACG awards was particularly notable at two-year institutions, where the 

number of students receiving ACG awards increased by 71 percent between 2006–07 and 

2007–08, from 38,300 to 65,600. Again, had the number increased in proportion to the 

number of Pell Grants awarded at two-year institutions (10 percent), only 42,000 students 

would have received ACG awards, suggesting that an additional 24,000 students received 

ACGs in 2007–08. 

	 The number of students with awards at four-year institutions increased from 263,400 in 

2006–07 to 333,100 in 2007–08. Again, had the number of ACGs increased at the same 

rate as the number of Pell Grants awarded (15.4 percent), only 303,900 students would 

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

— xix — 
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

have received ACG awards, suggesting that an additional 29,200 students received ACGs 

in 2007–08 because more students met the qualifications or institutions identified more 

students meeting them. 

	 Despite the growth in the number of ACGs awarded, many Pell Grant recipients simply 

do not meet all the criteria for an ACG. The proportion of Pell Grant recipients who 

received an ACG remained low, increasing only slightly overall, from 10 percent (U.S. 

Department of Education 2009, Appendix Table E-2) to 12 percent (Appendix Table 

D-2). 

ACG participation rates also varied by type of institution, reflecting the characteristics of the 

student populations at these institutions. Many Pell Grant recipients at public two-year 

institutions would have been ineligible because they were not recent high school graduates, they 

attended part-time, or they were enrolled in certificate or nondegree programs. 

	 About 25 percent of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients received an ACG at 

public and private nonprofit four-year institutions, compared with only 4 percent at 

public two-year institutions (Figure A). The pattern in 2007–08 was similar to that of 

2006–07. 

	 Almost half (46 percent) of all participating institutions awarded 50 or fewer ACGs 

(Figure 4). Some public four-year institutions handled relatively high volumes—52 

percent awarded between 201 and 1,000 ACGs in 2007–08, and another 7 percent 

awarded more than 1,000 (Appendix Table D-4). The average number of ACGs awarded 

across all participating institutions was 134 (Appendix Table D-3). 

ACG recipients tended to come from the higher end of the income distribution of Pell Grant 

recipients (although all were from lower-income families). 

	 In 2007–08, 8 percent of the dependent ACG recipients were from families with incomes 

of $50,000 or more, compared to 5 percent of dependent students in that income range 

who received Pell Grants only (Figure 7). Twelve percent of the dependent ACG 

recipients were from families with incomes of $40,000–49,999, compared to 9 percent of 

dependent students in that range who received Pell Grants only. In contrast, only 19 

percent of ACG recipients were in the lowest income group (under $10,000), compared 

to the 25 percent in that range who received Pell Grants only. 

— xx — 
Table A.—	 Number of undergraduates, numbers of Pell Grant, ACG, and SMART Grant recipients, and 

Table A.—number and percent change: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Undergraduates and grant recipients 2006–07 2007–08 

Change 

Number Percent 

Undergraduates 

Fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions 

Two-year institutions 

Four-year institutions 

Pell Grant recipients 

Totala 

Two-year institutions 

Four-year institutions 

Pell Grant recipients: first- and second-year 

 students in institutions with any ACGs 

Two-year institutions 

Four-year institutions 

Pell Grant recipients: third- and fourth-year 

 students in institutions with any SMART Grants 

ACG recipients 

Estimated number prior to implementationb 

Total ACG recipients 

Two-year institutions 

Four-year institutions 

SMART Grant recipients 

Estimated number prior to implementationb 

Total SMART Grant recipients c Major

Life sciences 

Engineering 

Computer science 

Physical science 

Mathematics 

Technology 

Multidisciplinary studies 

Foreign language 

15,184,000 

6,518,000 

8,666,000 

5,165,000 

2,357,000 

2,808,000 

3,010,000 

1,561,000 

1,449,000 

1,208,000 

425,000 

301,700 

38,300 

263,400 

80,000 

62,400 

23,800 

13,200 

9,800 

6,000 

4,200 

3,000 

1,700 

600 

15,604,000 

6,618,000 

8,986,000 

5,543,000 

2,486,000 

3,054,000 

3,382,000 

1,710,000 

1,672,000 

1,289,000 

— 

398,700 

65,600 

333,100 

— 

65,400 

26,000 

13,600 

10,000 

6,200 

4,000 

3,100 

1,700 

800 

419,000 

99,000 

320,000 

378,000 

130,000 

245,000 

372,000 

149,000 

224,000 

81,000 

— 

97,000 

27,300 

69,700 

— 

3,000 

2,200 

400 

200 

100 

(200) 

0 

0 

200 

2.8 

1.5 

3.7 

7.3 

5.5 

8.8 

12.4 

9.5 

15.4 

6.7 

— 

32.2 

71.3 

26.5 

— 

4.8 

9.2 

3.0 

2.0 

3.3 

(4.8) 

3.3 

0.0 

33.3 

— Not available.
 a

 Total for 2007–08 includes 2,690 students with unknown institution type.
 b

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

 New majors were added to the eligible lists for life sciences and multidisciplinary studies for 2007–08 (see Appendix A).
 

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2008
 

(NCES 2009-020), tables 193 and 194; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 2006–07 and 

2007–08 Federal Pell Grant Program End-of-Year Reports; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid,
 

COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

— xxi — 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

— xxii — 

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

Figure A.—of institution attended: 2006–07 and 2007–08

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

(Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).

2

2

4

10

25

26

1

1

3

8

22

23

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

2006–07

2007–08

The student interview administered as part of the 2007–08 National Postsecondary Student Aid 

Study (NPSAS:08) included questions to assess students’ awareness of the new grant programs. 

Awareness of the ACG program was low. However, students who were aware of the program did 

tend to understand its requirements. 

 Only 7 percent of potentially eligible students (those who were U.S. citizens, in a degree 

program, and likely to be eligible for a Pell Grant based on their income) had heard of the 

ACG program (Table 9). Those who had heard of the ACG program were more likely to 

have heard of it from their college counselors (35 percent) than their high school 

counselors (23 percent). 

 Of those 7 percent who were aware of the ACG program, 85 percent had heard of the 

full-time enrollment requirement, and 81 percent were aware of the rigorous high school 

program requirement. Fewer (70 percent) knew about the first-year cumulative 3.0 GPA 

requirement for a second-year grant (Table 10). 

 After the survey was administered, a match with the recipient file indicated that among 

students who were awarded an ACG, more than half (56 percent) had responded in the 

interview that they had not heard of it. 
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

ACG Renewal Rates
 

An important question is whether students who received an ACG in their first year were able to 

obtain another one in their second year. In other words, were they able to maintain the 3.0 GPA 

required at the end of the first year and maintain full-time enrollment, and did they still qualify 

for a Pell Grant? ACG renewal rates were low. 

	 Just over one-quarter (27 percent) of the first-year students who had received an ACG in 

2006–07 received another one in 2007–08 (Figure B). Almost half (48 percent) of firstyear students who received an ACG in 2006–07 received another Pell Grant in 2007–08, 

but not an ACG. The remaining 26 percent received neither an ACG nor a Pell Grant, 

either because they did not meet the income or enrollment requirements for a Pell Grant 

or were not enrolled. 

	 Students were more likely to get their ACGs renewed at private nonprofit four-year 

institutions (33 percent) and for-profit institutions (32 percent) than at public four-year 

institutions (25 percent) or public two-year institutions (20 percent). 

— xxiii — 

—

Figure B.—

Figure B.	 Percentage distribution of 2006–07 first-year ACG recipients by ACG and Pell Grant receipt 

status in 2007–08, by type of institution
 

Percent 

Total Public Private For- Public Private Fornonprofit profit nonprofit profit 

Four-year	 Two-year 

27 25 33 32 

20 25 

38 

48 51 

45 42 

47 

46 

41 

26 25 23 27 33 30 21 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

No Pell Grant 

or not enrolled 

Pell Grant, 

no ACG 

ACG and Pell 

Grant 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Pell Grant, no ACG includes 1 percent with SMART Grant in
 

four-year institutions. Based on Appendix Table D-14.
 

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

AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 
 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

National SMART Grant Program Eligibility, Participation, and Awareness 

In 2006–07, there were 1.2 million third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients, and the 

Department of Education initially estimated that 80,000 of them would be eligible for a National 

SMART Grant in 2006–07 (Table A).5 As happened with the ACG program, actual participation 

has been lower than expected. 

	 In 2006–07, 62,400 students received a National SMART Grant. As with the ACG 

program, the discrepancy between estimated and actual participation may be attributable 

a combination of factors, including a lack of awareness about the new programs, start-up 

difficulties common to all new programs, the difficulties that institutions had in 

identifying and verifying student eligibility, and the problem of accurately estimating the 

number of students meeting complex eligibility requirements with available data. 

	 The number of students receiving a National SMART Grant increased to 65,400 (5 

percent) in 2007–08. Some of this 3,000 increase was due to expanded eligibility. About 

1,800 National SMART Grants were awarded to students in newly eligible fields of study 

(see Appendix A for new fields). 

As with the ACG program, receipt of a National SMART Grant is tied to Pell Grant eligibility. 

If the number of Pell Grant recipients changes, so does the pool of students who are potentially 

eligible for a National SMART Grant. 

	 The number of Pell Grants awarded to third- and fourth-year students at institutions 

participating in the SMART Grant program increased by 7 percent between 2006–07 and 

2007–08, growing from 1.2 to 1.3 million students (Table A). 

	 Had the number of SMART Grant awards grown at the same rate in 2007–08 as the 

number of Pell Grant awards among third- and fourth-year students, 66,600 students 

would have received SMART Grants—an excess of 2,200 over the number actually 

awarded. In short, the increase in SMART Grant awards did not keep pace with the 

increase in Pell Grant awards. 

At most institutions, few students received National SMART Grants. Again, levels of 

participation varied by type of institution and field of study. 

	 Eighty percent of participating institutions awarded fewer than 50 grants, and more than a 

third awarded 10 or fewer (Figure 14), with an average of 44 grants (Appendix Table 

D-3). 

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

— xxiv — 
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

	 While about a quarter of public four-year institutions awarded more than 100 SMART 

Grants in 2007–08, almost all private nonprofit four-year institutions (94 percent) and 

most for-profit four-year institutions (83 percent) awarded 50 or fewer (Appendix Table 

D-4). 

As was true for dependent ACG recipients, dependent National SMART Grant recipients 

were overrepresented at the higher end of the family income distribution of Pell Grant 

recipients (Figure 17). 

	 In 2007–08, 22 percent of the dependent National SMART Grant recipients came from 

families with incomes of $40,000 or more, compared with 18 percent of third- and fourthyear students who received Pell Grants only. 

Life science was the most common major of National SMART Grant recipients (Table A). 

	 About three-quarters of National SMART Grant recipients majored in one of three fields 

of study in 2007–08: life sciences (40 percent), engineering (21 percent), or computer 

science (15 percent) (Figure 21). The pattern was similar in 2006–07. For-profit 

institutions awarded more than one-third of all the National SMART Grants in computer 

science (Figure 22). 

As with the ACG program, relatively few students were aware of the National SMART 

Grant program. Those who were aware of it tended to know the requirements. 

	 Of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-year undergraduates who were U.S. citizens and likely to 

be eligible for a Pell Grant, only 5 percent had heard of the National SMART Grant 

program (Table 9). 

	 Students who were aware of the National SMART Grants were asked if they knew about 

each of the three requirements, and most said they were aware of them: 80 percent were 

aware of the full-time enrollment requirement, 74 percent were aware of the major 

requirement, and 75 percent were aware of the need to maintain a cumulative GPA of 3.0 

or higher (Table 10). 

National SMART Grant Renewal Rates 

An important question is whether students who received a National SMART Grant as a thirdyear student were able to obtain another one in their fourth year. To do so, students had to 

continue to be enrolled full-time in an eligible major, maintain a 3.0 GPA in their major, and take 

at least one course that satisfies the requirements of their major field each term. 

— xxv — 
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

	 Overall, more than one-half (57 percent) of third-year students who had received a 

National SMART Grant in 2006–07 met the requirements to renew it as a fourth-year 

student (Figure C). 

	 Renewal rates for third-year National SMART Grant recipients were highest at private 

nonprofit institutions (60 percent), slightly lower at public institutions (57 percent), and 

substantially lower at for-profit institutions (43 percent). 

	 Renewal rates by field of study ranged from a low of 48 percent in computer science to a 

high of 66 percent in critical foreign languages (Figure 27). 

	 About one-fifth (22 percent) of third-year National SMART Grant recipients received 

another Pell Grant the following year but not another National SMART Grant. The 

remaining 22 percent received neither a National SMART Grant nor a Pell Grant 

(Figure C). 

— xxvi — 

—

Figure C.—

Figure C.	 Percentage distribution of 2006–07 third-year SMART Grant recipients by SMART Grant and 

Pell Grant receipt status in 2007–08, by type of institution 

Percent 

Total Public Private nonprofit 

Grant renewal status in 2007–08 

For-profit 

No Pell Grant or not enrolled 

Pell Grant, no SMART Grant 

57 57 SMART and Pell Grant 60 

43 

22 23 18 

21 

22 20 23 

35 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Based on Appendix Table D-15.
 

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

AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Pell Grant Renewal Rates 

A key question is whether low-income students who receive ACGs or National SMART Grants 

are more likely than their peers without these grants to persist in college and ultimately graduate. 

Without longitudinal enrollment data, which are not available for the students included in this 

study, this question cannot be answered. However, if a student who received a Pell Grant in 

2006–07 also received one in 2007–08, it means that the student persisted. If the student did not 

receive a Pell Grant the second year, it means that the student either did not enroll or enrolled but 

no longer qualified for a Pell Grant because of a higher family income or because the student 

dropped below half-time enrollment. Based on their Pell Grant renewal rates, students who 

received an ACG or National SMART Grant persisted at higher rates than their peers who 

received a Pell Grant only. 

	 Three-fourths (75 percent) of first-year Pell Grant recipients who also got an ACG in 

2006–07 received a Pell Grant again the following year, compared to just over half 

(56 percent) of those first-year Pell Grant recipients in 2006–07 who had received a Pell 

Grant only (Figure D). 

	 The Pell Grant renewal rates for third-year students who had also qualified for a National 

SMART Grant in 2006–07 were nearly 10 percentage points higher than for their 

counterparts who had received a Pell Grant only in 2006–07. 

The higher persistence rates for ACGs and National SMART Grants cannot be attributed solely 

to these grant programs. Students who receive ACGs or National SMART Grants are among the 

most academically qualified students receiving Pell Grants and therefore would be expected to 

persist at higher rates. However, the additional financial support (perhaps reducing the need to 

work during the school term) and other student attributes may have been contributing factors. 

Nevertheless, the substantial differences are worth noting. As experience with these programs 

accumulates, it will be possible to address these key questions with additional data and analyses. 

— xxvii — 
—

Figure D.—

Figure D.	 Percentage of Pell Grant–only and ACG or SMART Grant recipients who received another 

Pell Grant in 2007–08, by class level in 2006–07 

SMART Grants 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

First-year Second-year Third-year Fourth-year 

Class level in 2006–07 

Pell Grant only 

ACGs 

ACG or SMART Grant 

NOTE: Pell Grant renewals include students also receiving ACGs or SMART Grants. Based on Appendix Tables D-16 and 

D-17.
 

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

AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

Percent 

100 

56 

75 

62 

79 

69 

78 

31 

38 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

— xxviii — 
 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Introduction 

Purpose and History of the Academic Competitiveness Grant and National 

SMART Grant Programs 

The Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005, signed into law in February 2006, created two 

new grant programs for low-income students—the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) for 

first- and second-year students and the National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain 

Talent (National SMART) Grant for third- and fourth-year students. The ACG program is 

intended to encourage students to take challenging courses in high school and attend college fulltime, thus increasing their likelihood of succeeding in college. The National SMART Grant 

program is intended to encourage students to pursue college majors considered to be in high 

demand in the global economy (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and 

languages deemed critical to the national interest.6 Congress provided $4.5 billion over five years 

for these programs, and the first grants were awarded in 2006–07. Unless reauthorized, both 

programs will end after the 2010–11 academic year. 

Initially, to be eligible for either grant program, a student had to qualify for a Federal Pell Grant,7 

enroll full-time, and be a U.S. citizen. First-year students who met these conditions were eligible 

for an ACG up to $750 (depending on their financial need) if they graduated from high school 

after Jan. 1, 2006, completed a rigorous high school program (as defined by the U.S. Department 

of Education8), and enrolled in a degree program at a two- or four-year institution of higher 

education. 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 3.09 at the end of their first year of college. Third- and fourth-year 

students with eligible majors at four-year institutions could receive a National SMART Grant 

worth up to $4,000 if they started with and maintained a cumulative GPA of at least 3.0. 

The Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (H.R. 5715), signed into law in 

May 2008, expanded eligibility for the ACG and National SMART Grant programs to include 

part-time students and noncitizen permanent residents starting in January 2009. It also opened up 

6

 Appendix A includes a complete list of eligible majors.
 7

 The Federal Pell Grant Program provides need-based grants to low-income undergraduates and can be used at any
 

one of approximately 5,400 participating postsecondary institutions. The program is described in detail at:
 

http://www.ed.gov/programs/fpg/index.html. 8

 Appendix B contains more detail on rigorous high school programs.
 9

 On a 4.0 scale or the numeric equivalent.
 

— 1 —
 
 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

the ACG program to students enrolled in certificate programs lasting a year or longer at a degreegranting institution. The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (H.R. 4137), enacted in 

August 2008, further modified the programs. It gave states increased control to define rigorous 

secondary school programs of study (rather than leaving the definition up to the secretary of 

education) and delayed implementation of the eligibility changes until July 2009. Consequently, 

the expanded eligibility will first affect students enrolling in the 2009–10 academic year. 

Students enrolled during the first three years of the program (2006–07 through 2008–09) were 

subject to the original requirements. 

The timing of the legislation creating the ACG and National SMART Grant programs—the 

legislation was signed into law in February 2006 and the first grants had to be awarded for the 

2006–07 academic year—posed significant challenges for the U.S. Department of Education, 

colleges and universities, students and their families, and other stakeholders. In a short time 

period, the Department had to publicize the programs, develop interim regulations, and set up 

processes to disburse funds, and institutions had to identify and verify eligible students and 

incorporate the new awards into students’ aid packages. 

Participation in both programs in 2006–07 was lower than expected. Some 301,700 first- and 

second-year undergraduates received an ACG (compared with an early estimate that 425,000 

students would have been eligible), and about 62,400 third- and fourth-year students received a 

National SMART Grant (compared with an expected 80,000) (Choy, Berkner, Lee, and Topper 

2009). To what extent this lower-than-expected participation was due to inaccurate estimates of 

eligibility, lack of knowledge about the programs, implementation problems, or other reasons is 

unknown. All these factors may have played a role. 

In the second year of the program (2007–08), 398,700 students received an ACG and 65,400 

received a National SMART Grant. This growth reflects, at least in part, increases in the number 

of Pell Grant awards, which expanded the pool of potentially eligible students, and some 

expansion of the list of eligible majors for the National SMART Grant. 

After the first year, the U.S. Department of Education set a goal of doubling participation in both 

programs by 2010–11. To achieve this goal, the Department asked states to promote the 

participation of low-income students in rigorous high school courses, especially those that 

prepare them for National SMART Grant-eligible majors, and to support efforts to increase 

program awareness. In addition, the Department and some stakeholders have suggested strategies 

to improve the identification of eligible students and reduce the administrative burden associated 

with this task. 

— 2 — 
 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

Purpose of This Study 

MPR Associates and JBL Associates are assisting the Department of Education in evaluating the 

ACG and National SMART Grant programs. Of key interest to the Department is whether the 

financial incentives provided by the grants affect student behavior. That is, will the ACGs induce 

more economically disadvantaged high school students to complete a rigorous high school 

program and enroll and succeed in postsecondary education? And, will the National SMART 

Grants motivate more students to major and receive degrees in science, technology, engineering, 

mathematics, and critical languages? Unfortunately, it is still too early to answer these questions. 

Students currently in their final years of high school may not have had enough time to take all 

the required courses and prerequisites, and students already in college may be well-established in 

other majors and not have the foundation needed to select one of the qualifying majors even if 

they wanted to do so. 

However, using data for the first two years of the programs, academic years 2006–07 and 

2007–08, this report addresses a number of questions about indicators of intermediate progress 

toward achieving the long-term goals of the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. The 

following are key study questions: 

	 How have the legislation, regulations, and implementation of the programs changed? 

	 What percentage of students who met the Pell Grant requirement for ACG and National 

SMART Grant eligibility also received one of these grants, and is this percentage 

increasing over time? 

	 What percentages of students who obtained ACGs and National SMART Grants in 

2006–07 were eligible for and received renewed awards the following year? 

	 What evidence is there that students were aware of the ACGs and National SMART 

Grants and knew what the requirements were? 

	 Is there any evidence to suggest that students who received ACGs or National SMART 

Grants were more likely to persist in college than students who received Pell Grants 

only? 

The first report of this study, Academic Competitiveness and National SMART Grant Programs: 

First-Year Lessons Learned (Choy et al. 2009), addressed questions about the numbers and 

characteristics of students participating in the Pell Grant, ACG, and National SMART Grant 

programs in 2006–07 (using the COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File maintained by the 

office of Federal Student Aid). The report also analyzed historical data and used information 

— 3 — 
 

 

 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

gathered from stakeholders in focus groups and through published sources (public comments on 

proposed regulations, publications, and websites) to describe implementation concerns and 

legislative and regulatory actions taken to address the concerns. 

The second year of the study, reported on here, focused on updating information on the 

implementation of the programs (Chapter 2) and describing participation in 2007–08 (Chapter 3). 

Chapter 3 presents data for the ACG and National SMART Grant programs overall, by type of 

institution, across states, and by student characteristics. It also includes sections on the extent to 

which students were aware of the new programs and changes in STEM course-taking between 

2003–04 and 2007–08. The report also describes renewal rates from 2006–07 to 2007–08 in 

some detail (Chapter 4). It presents, for each type of institution, how many of the first-year 

students who received an ACG in 2006–07 received another one as a second-year student in 

2007–08. For those who did not receive an ACG in their second year, it indicates how many still 

had a Pell Grant in their second year but no ACG (implying that they did not earn a sufficiently 

high GPA in their first year or dropped below full-time attendance), and how many were either 

no longer eligible for a Pell Grant or not enrolled in college. Renewals of National SMART 

Grants from the third to fourth year of the program are described in a similar way. 

Data 

The office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) provided the program participation data used in this 

report. The file on 2007–08 participation merges student-level records of all Pell Grant recipients 

with ACG and National SMART Grant award records and information from the Free Application 

for Student Aid (FAFSA). These data were merged with a similar file for 2006–07 to determine 

renewal rates. See Appendix C for more detail on the data. 

Note that the numbers of Pell Grants, ACGs, and National SMART Grants reported here may not 

exactly match the numbers reported elsewhere. The FSA files used to generate the participation 

data are updated continuously with data from institutions on disbursements and cancellations so 

the exact number of awards varies slightly from day to day. By September, however, most 

financial aid data for the previous academic year have been finalized so differences between the 

numbers reported here and in other publications using data generated in September or later 

should be minor. Note that, unless otherwise indicated, the Pell Grant totals reported here are 

limited to recipients at institutions participating in the ACG or National SMART Grant programs 

and therefore are lower than the Pell Grant totals reported elsewhere. Additional Pell Grant 

recipients can be found at less-than-two-year institutions and at two- and four-year institutions 

that made no ACG or National SMART Grant awards and therefore are not included in this 

report. 

— 4 — 
 

 

CHAPTER 2 

History of the Concerns Surrounding the ACG and 

National SMART Grant Legislation and 

Implementation Update 

Background 

The report on the first year of the program (U.S. Department of Education 2009) describes the 

history of the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and National Science and Mathematics 

Access to Retain Talent (National SMART) Grant programs, including a detailed review of 

changes made to the legislation and regulations, stakeholder concerns and the Department’s 

response to these concerns, and outreach efforts during the first award year (2006–07). This 

chapter provides an update on modifications made to the ACG and National SMART Grant 

programs and describes the status of the various implementation, eligibility, and regulatory 

concerns raised by stakeholders during the 2007–08 academic year. Relevant documents 

(including legislation, regulations, and stakeholder websites) were reviewed to better understand 

the following questions: 

	 How had implementation progressed, primarily at the postsecondary level, during 

the second award year? 

	 How effective were marketing efforts targeted at secondary and postsecondary
 

institutions, stakeholder organizations, students, and parents? 

	 Whether and how were stakeholder concerns resolved, and in what ways? and 

	 How have perceptions of and discussions about Pell Grants, ACGs, and National 

SMART Grants have changed over time?
 

As background, Table 1 presents an updated chronological summary of critical steps in 

developing the legislation and the regulations, and of the Department of Education’s guidance in 

interpreting the regulations (through April 2010). 

— 5 —
 
Table 1.—	 Key milestones in the history of the legislation, regulations, and Department of 

Table 1.—Education guidance 

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 the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 

2005 into law. 

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

administering grants to institutions of higher education through a 

letter posted on the Department’s website. 

May 2, 2006 The 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 Final Regulations published, in response to comments. 

Effective 2007–08 academic year 

February–April 2007 Negotiated rulemaking sessions. 

Oct. 29, 2007 Final Regulations published, as amended by the secretary of 

education. 

Effective July 1, 2008

implemented on or aft

—but could be 

er Nov. 1, 2007 

May 7, 2008 

Effective Jan. 1, 2009 

The Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 

(H.R. 5715) is passed by the House and Senate and signed into 

law by President Bush. 

Aug. 1, 2008 The Department of Education’s Office of the Inspector General 

publishes its Audit of the Department’s Process for Disbursing 

Academic Competitiveness Grants and National Science and 

Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grants (U.S. Department of 

Education 2008). 

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

CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE ACG AND 

NATIONAL SMART GRANT LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 

— 6 — 
Table 1.—	 Key milestones in the history of the legislation, regulations, and Department of 

Table 1.—Education guidance—Continued 

Date Provisions 

Aug. 14, 2008 

Effective July 1, 2009 

The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (H.R. 4137) is 

enacted and the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) is 

reauthorized. 

Jan. 19, 2009 The Department of Education releases the report titled Academic 

Competitiveness and National SMART Grant Programs: FirstYear Lessons Learned. 

February 2009 The Department of Education releases its list of rigorous 

secondary school programs of study and eligible majors for the 

National SMART Grant in the 2009–10 COD Technical Reference 

(U.S. Department of Education 2009). 

March 25, 2009 The Government Accountability Office releases its report titled 

Recent Changes to Eligibility Requirements and Additional Efforts 

to Promote Awareness Could Increase Academic 

Competitiveness and SMART Grant Participation. 

May 1, 2009 Interim Final Rules are posted in the Federal Register. 

May 12, 2009 The Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary 

Education releases its Academic Competitiveness Grant and 

National SMART Grant Programs End-of-Year Report for the 

2007–08 academic year. 

June 1, 2009 Comments on Interim Final Rules due to the Department. Two 

stakeholder organizations responded. 

June 30, 2009 Correction to Interim Final Rules published in the Federal 

Register. 

July 1, 2009 Changes to the eligibility rules go into effect. 

Nov. 23, 2009 

Effective Jan. 22, 2010 

Final Regulations published in the Federal Register. 

NOTE: A more detailed description of the history of the ACG and National SMART Grant programs can be found in 

Appendix H. 

CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE ACG AND 

NATIONAL SMART GRANT LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 

At the same time that legislation and regulations are modifying and shaping the ACG and 

National SMART Grant programs, changes are being made to the federal student aid programs 

that may affect the utilization of ACGs and National SMART Grants. The maximum authorized 

Pell Grant amount for eligible students was increased, starting July 1, 2009, to $6,000 for 

academic year 2009–10. However, because the authorized maximum amount was not funded, the 

maximum Pell Grant amount for the 2009–10 award year was $5,350, an increase of $619 from 

the 2008–09 award year. For 2010–11, the maximum award was funded at $5,550, a $200 

increase, and eligibility for the Pell Grant was expanded. This will increase the number of 

potentially eligible ACG and National SMART Grant recipients. 

— 7 — 
 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE ACG AND 

NATIONAL SMART GRANT LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 
 

The Department of Education has developed a shorter and simpler version of the online Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and renewal FAFSA that eliminates nonapplicable 

questions. They have also developed a Web application that will let some families answer the 

remaining financial questions with a data feed from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). These 

improvements should increase the number of Pell Grant applicants, as research shows that the 

complexity of the current FAFSA application prevents many low-income, potentially Pell Grant– 

eligible students from applying for federal aid (ACSFA 2008). 

Unrelated to the changes in student aid programs is the effect of the current economic recession 

on college and university operations. Declines in state support and losses in endowment holdings 

have increased the pressure on institutions to cut expenses and raise tuition to compensate for 

lost revenue. There have also been increases in enrollment, especially in less expensive public 

and community colleges. During a recession, unemployed or underemployed workers are more 

likely to return to college to upgrade their skills than are those who are fully employed.10 The 

effects of these program changes and the larger economic cycles will affect the numbers of 

students who are eligible for ACGs and National SMART Grants in their final years of funding. 

Continuing Controversy on the Design and Purpose of the Legislation 

While financial aid has been a central part of the federal government’s higher education policy 

for many years, the introduction of a merit component to the Pell Grant award process was 

perceived by postsecondary administrators and their stakeholder organizations as a significant 

change in federal policy. The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, or G.I. Bill, passed in 1944, was a 

significant federal foray into providing financial aid for students—in this case, veterans—for 

postsecondary education. The first need-based federal grant programs came into existence with 

Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. The Education Amendments of 1972 went on to 

expand aid to the neediest of students through the creation of the Basic Education Opportunity 

Grant, later renamed the Pell Grant. Title IV Grant programs were established to help financially 

needy students. 

Leading up to and continuing throughout the first award year for ACGs and National SMART 

Grants, there was general discussion about the merit components of the grants, and specifically 

about the ACG requirement that students complete a rigorous secondary school curriculum in 

high school and achieve a 3.0 GPA at the end of their first year to receive their second-year 

award, and the National SMART Grant requirement that students maintain a cumulative 3.0 

GPA. The intent of the programs was to encourage academic and enrollment behaviors that 

would lead to successful degree completion. The statutory requirements (full-time enrollment, 

enrollment in degree programs) were aligned with previous research that identifies these 

10 For examples of news stories on recession-induced changes by colleges and universities, see 

http://recessionreality.blogspot.com/ (accessed July, 2010). 

— 8 — 
 

 

 

CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE ACG AND 

NATIONAL SMART GRANT LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 
 

characteristics as factors in degree attainment (U.S. Department of Education 1999, 2006). By 

tying these programs to the Pell Grant, the government was attempting to bolster access and 

degree completion for students who are most at risk of never reaching, or dropping out of, higher 

education. By mandating that students complete a rigorous secondary school curriculum, states 

were also encouraged to ensure that approved curricula were available to all students. 

Critics took issue with the merit component of the grants, based on philosophical differences and 

on logistical concerns. First, some critics were concerned about the perceived shift in federal aid 

policy away from need-based to merit-based aid and its effect on low-income students. They 

were concerned that this trend toward funding merit-based aid might affect the funding levels of 

other federal need-based aid programs, while serving a more limited student population. During 

interviews and focus groups held during the first implementation year, high school and 

postsecondary stakeholders voiced concerns that the distribution of aid would shift from the low 

end to the high end of the Pell Grant-eligibility range and exclude more racial and ethnic 

minority recipients, thereby reducing the resources going to those students who need the most 

help to attend college. 

The other, more practical, concern was how to fulfill the statutory requirements, given the time, 

budgetary, and administrative constraints facing postsecondary institutions. During the first 

implementation year, colleges and universities had less than six months to prepare for 

disbursement. Additionally, verifying academic achievement and meeting the necessary 

documentation requirements set forth by the statute required greater coordination among 

admissions officers, financial aid officers, and registrars. As open-access institutions, community 

colleges in particular felt the brunt of these new statutory requirements. 

Changes in the Programs 

Leading up to the start of the 2006–07 academic year, the Department notified the public of this 

new source of potential financial aid; provided guidance and Interim Regulations to higher 

education institutions; set up processes to disburse funds to colleges and universities; worked 

with stakeholders to develop Final Regulations for 2006–07; and began establishing regulations 

for subsequent years. The Interim Final Rules that governed these programs were issued by the 

Department in July 2006 and were followed by a series of “Dear Colleague” letters to address 

specific concerns—expanding the list of National SMART Grant majors and providing two 

approaches for determining “academic year.” At the same time, postsecondary institutions 

worked to identify eligible students and award these new grants, despite concerns about the 

administrative burdens created by the new requirements. The Final Regulations aimed to further 

reduce the administrative burden of implementing the grants. 

— 9 — 
 

 

CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE ACG AND 

NATIONAL SMART GRANT LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 
 

The Final Regulations for 2008–09, released in November 2007, were developed through the 

analysis of comments received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that was based on a 

negotiated rulemaking process. Early implementation of the regulations was allowed. 

Modifications made to the Final Regulations included allowing states and local education 

agencies to submit rigorous curricula for approval beyond the following year; clarifying how to 

interpret Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), and dual enrollment 

credits; and outlining a process by which institutions could submit petitions to have additional 

majors designated as National SMART Grant–eligible majors. 

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

5715) and the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (H.R. 4137) 

The Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (H.R. 5715) was passed by 

Congress in April 2008 and signed into law by President Bush on May 7, 2008. With the passage 

of H.R. 5715, Congress expanded eligibility to include part-time students, eligible noncitizens, 

and students enrolled in certificate programs lasting a year or more at a degree-granting 

institution. The legislation also deleted the “academic year” terminology, which allowed colleges 

and universities to determine student standing based on grade level. Students enrolled in 

demanding degree programs requiring five years of course credits were also allowed to receive a 

fifth-year grant. In addition, Congress made it clear that only states could add additional rigorous 

programs of study to those previously defined by the secretary to determine student eligibility for 

the ACG. Although these changes were slated to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2009, the Higher 

Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (H.R. 4137), passed by Congress in August 2008, delayed 

the implementation of these changes until July 1, 2009. Final regulations implementing H.R. 

5715 and H.R. 4137 were published on Nov. 23, 2009, with an effective date of Jan. 22, 2010. 

Resolution of the Statutory and Regulatory Concerns Expressed by 

Stakeholders 

Many of the original concerns expressed by stakeholders in the first year of administering the 

grants were addressed with clarifications in the Final Regulations and in the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act of 2008. Stakeholders were particularly pleased that the new legislation 

expanded the programs to include a wider range of Pell Grant–eligible students, although some 

stakeholders are still concerned about the burden associated with administering the rigorous 

secondary school curriculum and postsecondary GPA requirements. This section primarily 

focuses on the concerns raised during the second implementation year and any modifications that 

were made to the statutory language. Table 2 lists the salient concerns affecting the 

implementation of the ACG and National SMART Grant legislation, and whether stakeholders 

consider them still unresolved. A more detailed review of all the major stakeholder concerns 

since the programs’ inception can be found in Chapter 2 of the First-Year Lessons Learned 

report (U.S. Department of Education 2009). 

— 10 — 
Table 2.—	 Development and resolution of salient concerns about eligibility requirements for ACGs and 

Table 2.—National SMART Grants 

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): Effective Jan. 1, 

2009 

Higher Education 

Opportunity Act (H.

4137): Effective Jul

2009 

R. 

y 1, 

Eligibility Requirements for ACGs and National SMART Grants 

Adding “Merit” Aid to 

Basic Pell Grant 

Requirements 

Legislation; No changes to 

the Final Regulations dated 

Oct. 29, 2007. 

No change. No change. 

Full-time Enrollment Legislation; No changes to 

the Final Regulations dated 

Oct. 29, 2007. 

Students enrolled at least 

half-time are now eligible. 

No change. 

Degree Programs Legislation; No changes to 

the Final Regulations dated 

Oct. 29, 2007. 

Students enrolled in oneto two-year certificate 

programs at degreegranting institutions are 

now eligible. 

Change to “program of 

study.” 

U.S. Citizenship Legislation; No changes to 

the Final Regulations dated 

Oct. 29, 2007. 

Some students who are 

noncitizens (permanent 

residents) are now 

eligible. 

No change. 

Rigorous High School No changes to the Final States given increased No change. 

Program Regulations dated Oct. 29, control to define rigorous 

2007. secondary school 

The secretary recognizes 

at least one rigorous 

secondary school program 

of study for each state 

annually. States may 

submit proposals for 

recognition or may elect to 

programs of study. 

The secretary no longer 

recognizes rigorous 

secondary school 

programs of study. 

accept rigorous secondary 

school programs of study 

pre-recognized by the 

secretary. 

“Academic Year” Statutory requirements, “Academic year” changed No change. 

Defining Students’ Initial Interim and Final to “year.” 

and Ongoing Eligibility Regulations. The 

Department issued 

clarifications in the Final 

Regulations, but did not 

change the definition of 

“academic year.” 

Cont’d. next page. 

 

CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE ACG AND 

NATIONAL SMART GRANT LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 

— 11 — 
Table 2.—	 Development and resolution of salient concerns about eligibility requirements for ACGs and 

Table 2.—National SMART Grants—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): Effective Jan. 1, 

2009 

Higher Education 

Opportunity Act (H.

4137): Effective Jul

2009 

R. 

y 1, 

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 Requirement 

Interim and Final 

Regulations. 

Regulatory requirement, 

no change. 

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 2007 

Final Regulations and 

provided institutions with a 

process to petition for the 

inclusion of additional 

majors. 

Extends eligibility for a 

National SMART Grant to 

a student enrolled in a 

qualifying liberal arts 

curriculum. 

No change. 

National SMART Grant 

eligibility expanded to 

include students enrolled 

in the fifth year of a fiveyear degree program. 

Postsecondary GPA Legislation; The 

Department issued 

clarifications in the Final 

Regulations dated Oct. 29, 

2007. 

No change. No change. 

CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE ACG AND 

NATIONAL SMART GRANT LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 

Concerns Raised During the Second Award Year, 2007–08 

During 2007–08, stakeholders continued to express concern about the statutory requirements that 

caused administrative burden in implementing the grants and called for the expansion of program 

eligibility to all students who were Pell Grant–eligible, which would expand the programs to 

include part-time students who were enrolled at least half-time, certificate-seekers, and 

noncitizens eligible for federal aid. The passage of H.R. 5715 and H.R. 4137 in 2008 addressed 

many of these concerns, although the administrative burden was still felt by some institutions. 

Local campus difficulty in implementing technology solutions for the coordination of 

information on financial need, determining students’ initial and continuing academic progress 

and eligibility, and the ACG’s rigorous curriculum requirement continued to concern policy 

groups, financial aid administrators, and academic advisors. These stakeholders thought that the 

— 12 — 
 

 

CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE ACG AND 

NATIONAL SMART GRANT LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 
 

processes for verifying that a student initially met the rigorous curriculum requirement for the 

ACG, attained the required minimum GPA at the end of the first year for the ACG, and met the 

minimum GPA each term for the National SMART Grant required time-consuming 

administrative processes at a time when many colleges were facing cutbacks in staffing. 

Although the Department provided clarification throughout the first and second implementation 

years, no significant changes in legislation were made to address these concerns during the 

2008–09 academic year. 

Administrative Burden 

Several recent reports cite the administrative burden of qualifying the grant recipients as one of 

the primary reasons why the number of recipients during the first two implementation years was 

lower than the Department had expected. The Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) 

discussed the ACG and National SMART Grant programs in its February 2008 publication 

Window of Opportunity: Targeting Federal Grant Aid to Students with the Lowest Incomes 

(McSwain, Cunningham, Erisman, and Merisotis 2008), in which they called upon stakeholders 

to address the challenge of reaching a greater number of students. 

The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) called the 

programs “too complicated and ineffective” in their April 2009 report National Conversation 

Initiative—Preliminary Recommendations (NASFAA 2009, p. 20). NASFAA’s criticisms of the 

programs echo the feedback that stakeholders provided during the first implementation year: that 

the programs are challenging to implement, burdensome on financial aid and academic advising 

departments, and have thus far served a limited number of students. NASFAA also stated that the 

merit component both limits the reach of the grants and signals a change in federal student aid 

policy. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) heard similar comments from the 

institutions and administrators they interviewed for their audit of the ACG and National SMART 

Grant programs, released in March 2009. Some of the state officials and college administrators 

interviewed by the GAO felt that the differing state and institutional participation rates were due 

in part to variances in access to rigorous curricula, state high school graduation requirements, 

college admissions requirements, and institutional and student characteristics. Many of the 

financial aid administrators interviewed for the GAO report (U.S. Government Accountability 

Office 2009) identified the rigorous curriculum requirement as particularly difficult to verify and 

burdensome to implement. 

Despite these concerns, states and institutions have made efforts to simplify the award process. 

Northwestern Connecticut Community College, for example, has reconfigured its data system to 

automate the award process and promote the ACG to students. While awarding the grants still 

creates a “huge additional workload on already strained resources,” the college has developed a 

form to help administrators and staff members determine student eligibility (Northwestern 

— 13 — 
 

 

 

CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE ACG AND 

NATIONAL SMART GRANT LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 
 

Connecticut Community College n.d.). The GAO also reported that several of the states and 

institutions they interviewed had implemented strategies to help streamline the verification 

process. Texas and Florida annotate the high school transcripts of students who meet the rigorous 

curricula requirement; Georgia provides institutions with a list of students who have received 

their Bright Future Scholarship (and thereby meet the curriculum requirements); and Rhode 

Island is considering annotating its high school transcripts as well. 

Definition of Academic Year 

Leading up to and during the first implementation year, stakeholders expressed concern about the 

definition of “academic year” as described in Section 481(a)(2) of the Higher Education 

Reconciliation Act of 2005. Under the Interim Final Regulations, academic year progress was 

defined in terms of both the minimum number of weeks of instructional time and in credit or 

clock hours. 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. 

Initial confusion over the rules for the program led to errors in awarding aid. 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 in order to complete the number of 

credit hours in an academic year and allowed institutions to decide this on a student-by-student 

basis, using two suggested approaches and several examples. 

The language of the law left the Department little latitude for modifying the statutory 

requirements, and there were no changes to the definition for the 2006–07, 2007–08, or 2008–09 

academic years. The Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (H.R. 5715) 

provided that eligibility for awards is based on the student’s grade level instead of academic 

year. 

Regulatory Requirements 

Stakeholders continued to voice concerns over several of the regulatory requirements: that 

institutions must participate in the ACG and National SMART Grant programs to continue to 

participate in Title IV funding; that colleges review four-year high school transcripts to verify 

completion of a rigorous curriculum instead of using the typical three-year transcript; and that 

the determination of eligibility for the National SMART Grant be based on academic major, 

course work, and postsecondary GPA. Postsecondary institutions felt these regulatory 

requirements were particularly difficult to implement, especially for community colleges and 

smaller colleges and universities, which generally lack the staff, budget, and expertise to process 

student transcripts in such detail. As open-admission institutions, many community colleges did 

— 14 — 
 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE ACG AND 

NATIONAL SMART GRANT LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 
 

not require high school transcripts for enrollment and were not set up to meet the verification 

requirements of the ACG. Although many states and institutions have now put processes in place 

to mitigate the administrative burden of these grants, community colleges may continue to find 

the verification requirements burdensome as college enrollment increases and institutional and 

state budgets shrink. 

Mandatory Participation 

Stakeholders questioned the mandatory institutional participation requirement, saying it violated 

institutional autonomy and would be difficult to implement given the short amount of time 

between the authorization of the program and the awarding of the grants. 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. A voluntary program would 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 college or university they decided to attend. 

Although no changes were, or will be, made to this part of the statute, the Department’s Office of 

the Inspector General (OIG) was assigned the tasks of examining the proper identification of 

eligible students, the correct disbursement of monies, and institutional compliance. In the report 

Audit of the Department’s Process for Disbursing Academic Competitiveness Grants and 

National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grants (U.S. Department of 

Education 2008), the OIG found that the Federal Student Aid (FSA) office had sufficient 

processes in place to correctly identify financially eligible students, but did not adequately follow 

up with colleges to ensure compliance. More than half of the nonparticipating ACG/National 

SMART Grant-eligible colleges never responded to FSA inquiries as to why they were not 

participating, and the OIG report found that a significant proportion of these colleges were in fact 

eligible to participate, although they may have had very few students who would have qualified. 

The FSA, like the colleges and universities, had insufficient time to adequately implement the 

procedures and processes needed to monitor institutional compliance. 

The OIG recommended that the FSA put procedures in place to improve oversight of the grants 

and that a system of fines and suspension/termination from the Pell Grant program be established 

for colleges that are not in compliance. In response, the FSA began during the second award year 

(2007–08) to collect certification from nonparticipating institutions that appeared to be eligible 

for at least one of the programs. The FSA also agreed to develop an administrative protocol in 

spring 2009 for issuing fines to eligible institutions that failed to comply with the procedures 

(U.S. Department of Education 2008). 

— 15 — 
 

CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE ACG AND 

NATIONAL SMART GRANT LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 
 

Four-year High School Transcript 

During the first implementation year, college stakeholders were concerned about the requirement 

to review four-year high school transcripts rather than three-year transcripts. They reported that 

this requirement had been a time-consuming manual process. Community colleges, in particular, 

felt this requirement would put an undue burden on them as open-access institutions. Neither 

H.R. 5715 nor H.R. 4137 modified the statutory language to allow for the evaluation of partial 

high school transcripts. This will continue to be an issue for some colleges until the programs 

sunset in 2010–11. 

Current Status of Legislation and Regulations 

The legislation was significantly modified with the passage of H.R. 5715 and H.R. 4137 in 

summer 2008. The new program modifications—namely, the expanded eligibility requirements 

and changes to the definition of “academic year”—went into effect July 1, 2009, in time for the 

fourth award year. On May 1, 2009, the Department solicited comments on the Interim Final 

Rules in the Federal Register;

11 comments were due to the Department on June 1, 2009. Two 

organizations responded to the Interim Final Rules: the American Association of University 

Women and the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. Both 

organizations applauded the changes made by H.R. 5715 and H.R. 4137. NASFAA had several 

questions about the definition of “eligible program of study”; the duration of student eligibility, 

particularly for students in certificate programs that are longer than one year; the ability of ACG 

recipients who enter as sophomores due to AP or IB course work to receive a second-year grant; 

and the calculation of a grant for students whose grade level changes after the term has begun.12 

The Department waived the negotiated rulemaking requirements for changes made to the 

programs under Section 401(b) of H.R. 4137 and waived the notice-and-comment rulemaking 

requirements outlined by the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 533), given the short 

amount of time between the set implementation date of the revised regulations and the 2009–10 

award year. Final regulations were published on Nov. 23, 2009. 

Despite the modifications made to the ACG and National SMART Grant programs, the programs 

are slated to sunset after the 2010–11 academic year. It is anticipated that the recent 

modifications may not increase program participation rates as much as might be expected if the 

programs were expected to continue. 

11 Department of Education (Rules and Regulations). Federal Register (Vol. 74, No. 83), p. 20210 (May 1, 2009). 

Available at: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2009-2/050109a.html.

12 Available at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#searchResults?Ne=11+8+8053+8098+8074+8066+8084+1&Nt
 

t=Academic+Competitiveness+Grant&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&N=8060 (accessed July, 2010).
 

— 16 — 
 

CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE ACG AND 

NATIONAL SMART GRANT LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 
 

Stakeholders’ Perspectives 

To gain a better understanding of general concerns surrounding the ACG and National SMART 

Grant programs, the publications and websites of stakeholder organizations were reviewed for 

this report. These stakeholders include a mix of organizations representing secondary and 

postsecondary institutions and administrators; parents, students, and teachers; governmental and 

nongovernmental agencies; and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)-

related associations (Table 3). Stakeholders were identified based on their role in preparing 

students for or implementing the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. While the selected 

group of stakeholders is not exhaustive, it does offer a range of perspectives and insights into the 

regulatory and implementation aspects of the grant programs at both the college and secondary 

school levels. 

— 17 — 

Table 3. —Stakeholder organizations 

Organization Stakeholder Role 

Postsecondary Stakeholders 

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 Association of University Women Advocates educational equity for women and girls 

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 

State Higher Education Executive Officers Represents state chief executive officers that serve on 

coordinating boards and governing boards of postsecondary 

education 

The Council for Opportunity in Education and The Pell 

Institute 

Represents TRIO programs and some Educational Opportunity 

Programs 

United States Student Association Represents students 

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table. 
Table 3. —Stakeholder organizations—Continued 

Elementary and Secondary Stakeholders 

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

counselors 

Council of Chief State School Officers Includes public officials who head departments of elementary 

and secondary education 

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 

National Education Association National labor union committed to advancing public education 

Parent and Student Stakeholders 

United States Student Association Represents students 

National Parent Teacher Association Includes high school and elementary school parents 

Other Agencies and Organizations 

Achieve, Inc. Nonprofit education reform organization 

Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance Independent and bipartisan source of advice and counsel on 

student financial aid policy to both Congress and the secretary 

of education 

National Business Association Represents the self-employed and small business communities 

National Governors Association Represents state governors 

U.S. Department of Education For the ACG and National SMART Grant programs, responsible 

for developing regulations and administering the programs 

U.S. Government Accountability Office Responsible for auditing, investigating, and evaluating 

government programs 

College Board Nonprofit membership organization promoting college success 

Institute for Higher Education Policy Nonprofit organization promoting increased access to and 

success in postsecondary education 

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Nonprofit organization promoting increased access and success 

for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary students 

The Lumina Foundation for Education Nonprofit organization promoting increased access to and 

success in postsecondary education 

The Brookings Institution Nonprofit public policy organization 

NOTE: Interviews were conducted in fall 2006 with experts from key stakeholder organizations. Documentation and feedback from 

the negotiated rulemaking sessions and from stakeholder websites were collected and examined. For the first-year report, 

stakeholders were selected based on their role in implementing the ACG and National SMART Grant programs during the first award 

year. This list has since been broadened to include a more diverse set of stakeholders, ranging from representatives from high 

school and postsecondary organizations to nongovernmental organizations. 

CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE ACG AND 

NATIONAL SMART GRANT LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 

Stakeholders’ Perspectives 

Given that some of the most contentious statutory concerns (rigorous curriculum requirement, 

postsecondary GPA requirement) are unlikely to be modified or removed before the programs’ 

sunset following the 2010–11 academic year, many colleges have found ways to implement the 

grants and work within the framework and guidelines provided by the Department. The 

American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, the National 

Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, and the National Association of College 

— 18 — 
 

 

CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE ACG AND 

NATIONAL SMART GRANT LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 
 

and University Business Officers continue to provide their members with updates and 

implementation information on the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. 

Questions raised by college and university financial aid administrators on the national FINAID-L 

listserv13 continued to center on identifying students, determining eligibility, calculating GPA, 

and evaluating transcripts. Administrators and other financial aid personnel use this site to post 

technical questions and receive guidance from their colleagues on how to adhere to, and 

interpret, the legislation. 

Similarly, parents and students continue to post questions and comments about the grants on the 

College Confidential website,14 which was developed by several college aid counselors, 

administrators, and a parent to provide information on the college admissions and financial aid 

application process. Posts from parents and students continue to focus on the eligibility 

requirements, approved majors, and how changes in enrollment affect grant disbursement. 

During the Brookings Institution’s May 2009 forum on the “Future of Student Financial Aid,” 

participants discussed some of the challenges that institutions and administrators faced when 

implementing the ACGs and National SMART Grants. One of the concerns they raised about the 

design of the programs was that, unlike the Pell Grant, whose award amount is distributed on a 

sliding scale based on income, students must meet all of the eligibility requirements to receive 

the ACG and National SMART Grant. 

There have also been calls by various higher education advocacy groups to streamline the 

financial aid system and eliminate the ACG and National SMART Grant programs altogether by 

fully funding the Pell Grant. In September 2008, the College Board and the Rethinking Student 

Aid Study Group published the report Fulfilling the Commitment: Recommendations for 

Reforming Federal Student Aid (College Board 2008), which presents recommendations for 

improving the federal student aid system. The authors cited the growing complexity of the 

federal student grant system and recommended simplifying the Pell Grant program by increasing 

the average award instead of diverting funds to companion programs, such as the ACG and 

National SMART Grant programs, that serve a smaller population of low- and middle-income 

students. NASFAA (2009) made similar recommendations in its report, calling for an increase in 

the maximum Pell Grant award through the elimination of the ACG and National SMART Grant 

programs. 

13 Archives searched at: FINAID-L@LISTS.ASET.PSU.EDU (accessed July, 2010). 

14 Available at: http://www.collegeconfidential.com (accessed July, 2010). 

— 19 — 
 

CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE ACG AND 

NATIONAL SMART GRANT LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 
 

Conclusion 

Many of the concerns expressed by stakeholders during the first and second award years have 

been mitigated by the enactment of H.R. 5715 and H.R. 4137, although concerns were still raised 

about the perceived administrative burden of implementing the grants, and several recent reports 

have advocated instead for increasing the maximum Pell Grant amount by eliminating the ACG 

and National SMART Grant programs entirely. Stakeholders generally approve of the changes 

made to the legislation, primarily because more students will meet the new eligibility 

requirements, even though there are still concerns about the increased administrative burden of 

processing a higher volume of transcripts and awards. It is anticipated that a greater number of 

students will be served by the grants during the 2009–10 academic year, due in part to the 

broader eligibility rules and to more awareness about the programs and their requirements 

(Table 4). 

— 20 — 

Table 4. —Possible effects of legislative and economic changes and stakeholder efforts 

Changes Expected Effects

 H.R. 5715, H.R. 4137, and the Health Care and 

Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 





Increased participation by lower-income and adult 

students who are more likely to attend part-time and 

enroll in certificate programs. 

Increased administrative burden as the number of 

recipients increases. 

FAFSA simplification  Increased participation by lower-income students 

who are more likely to complete the FAFSA. 

Economic recession 





Increased postsecondary enrollment, particularly at 

community colleges. 

Possibly fewer students attending full-time due to 

the financial burden of full-time tuition, although 

these students would still be eligible for an ACG or 

National SMART Grant award. 

More students may qualify for a Pell Grant, given 

changes in financial circumstances. 

Increase in eligibility and maximum Pell Grant award  Increased participation and retention. 

“Race to the Top” funding 



Dependent on how quickly money is disbursed and 

states fund their programs. 

It is unlikely that the ACG or National SMART Grant 

programs will benefit from this funding before they 

sunset in 2010–11. 

Various efforts to improve high school graduation rates  Increase in the number of students graduating high 

school and in the number of graduates prepared for 

college. 

States’ and institutions’ efforts to automate award 

process 

 These efforts have generally been limited to a small 

number of states and institutions. While they may 

prove beneficial, it is unlikely that many more states 

or institutions will adopt these practices as the 

programs are slated to sunset in 2010–11. 

Mandatory participation penalties for noncompliance  Increased participation among colleges, but also 

increased risk for institutional error, particularly at 

smaller institutions and community colleges that do 

not have the ability or staffing to process a high 

volume of transcripts. 
 

CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE ACG AND 

NATIONAL SMART GRANT LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 
 

Efforts made by the FSA to increase compliance may result in an increase in the number of ACG 

awards. State and institutional efforts to automate the award process and better classify students 

as having completed a “rigorous” secondary school curriculum will also streamline the 

verification process, and thereby reduce the associated administrative burden. Other recent 

developments—such as the increase in the maximum Pell Grant award and the simplification of 

the FAFSA—may also contribute to an increase in postsecondary enrollment and persistence. 

Postsecondary institutions, and community colleges in particular, may experience increases in 

student enrollment, despite decreases in state funding and institutional endowments, as 

unemployed and underemployed workers return to education. While many of these students may 

be enrolled part-time, they would still be eligible for the ACG or National SMART Grant as long 

as they enroll at least half-time and meet the other eligibility requirements. 

Federal, state, and local efforts to improve K–12 education, postsecondary enrollment, and 

degree attainment are unlikely to have the effect of increasing the number of ACG recipients. 

The ACG and National SMART Grant programs will sunset at the end of the 2010–11 academic 

year, and the fruits of these efforts are generally slow to mature. 

— 21 — 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 3 

ACG and National SMART Grant Program 

Participation and Awareness 

This chapter describes participation in the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and National 

Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) Grant programs focusing on 

2007–08, the second year these grants were available. The figures in this chapter show data for 

both 2006–07 and 2007–08 to allow comparisons between the first and second years of each 

program. The tables in Appendix D provide more detail on participation in 2007–08, showing 

data by type of institution and student characteristics and comparing ACG and National SMART 

Grant recipients with students who received Pell Grants only. The report on the first year of the 

program contains comparable tables for 2006–07 in Appendix E (U.S. Department of Education 

2009). 

In considering participation in the ACG and National SMART Grant programs, it is important to 

remember (as explained in Chapter 1) that participation is tied to Pell Grant eligibility. As a 

result, it is sensitive to changes in Pell Grant participation and also to changes in the maximum 

Pell Grant. If the number of Pell Grant recipients increases, for example, so does the pool of 

students eligible for an ACG or National SMART Grant. In addition, because a student’s total 

grant aid cannot exceed his or her calculated financial need, it is possible that as the maximum 

Pell Grant amount increases, fewer students may be eligible for an ACG or National SMART 

Grant or the amounts they can receive may be reduced.15 

In fall 2006, a total of 15.2 million undergraduates were enrolled in degree-granting institutions, 

and 5.2 million of them received a Pell Grant (Table 5). Of these, 3.0 million were in their first 

or second year of study and therefore potentially eligible for an ACG. The Department of 

Education estimated that some 425,000 of these first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients 

would be eligible for an ACG. 

15 Congress legislates a maximum Pell Grant amount, but the actual maximum in a given year depends on the 

amount appropriated. The maximum Pell Grant was $4,050 in 2006–07 and increased to $4,310 in 2007–08. The 

maximum increased again in 2008–09 (to $4,731) and will be $5,350 in 2009–10. An individual student’s Pell Grant 

award for the year depends on family income and is adjusted for the price of attending, status as a full- or part-time 

student, and number of terms enrolled. 

— 23 —
 
Table 5.—	 Number of undergraduates, numbers of Pell Grant, ACG, and SMART Grant recipients, and 

Table 5.—number and percent change: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Undergraduates and grant recipients 2006–07 2007–08 

Change 

Number Percent 

Undergraduates 

Fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions 

Two-year institutions 

Four-year institutions 

Pell Grant recipients 

Totala 

Two-year institutions 

Four-year institutions 

Pell Grant recipients: first- and second-year 

 students in institutions with any ACGs 

Two-year institutions 

Four-year institutions 

Pell Grant recipients: third- and fourth-year 

 students in institutions with any SMART Grants 

ACG recipients 

Estimated number prior to implementationb 

Total ACG recipients 

Two-year institutions 

Four-year institutions 

SMART Grant recipients 

Estimated number prior to implementationb 

Total SMART Grant recipients c Major

Life sciences 

Engineering 

Computer science 

Physical science 

Mathematics 

Technology 

Multidisciplinary studies 

Foreign language 

15,184,000 

6,518,000 

8,666,000 

5,165,000 

2,357,000 

2,808,000 

3,010,000 

1,561,000 

1,449,000 

1,208,000 

425,000 

301,700 

38,300 

263,400 

80,000 

62,400 

23,800 

13,200 

9,800 

6,000 

4,200 

3,000 

1,700 

600 

15,604,000 

6,618,000 

8,986,000 

5,543,000 

2,486,000 

3,054,000 

3,382,000 

1,710,000 

1,672,000 

1,289,000 

— 

398,700 

65,600 

333,100 

— 

65,400 

26,000 

13,600 

10,000 

6,200 

4,000 

3,100 

1,700 

800 

419,000 

99,000 

320,000 

378,000 

130,000 

245,000 

372,000 

149,000 

224,000 

81,000 

— 

97,000 

27,300 

69,700 

— 

3,000 

2,200 

400 

200 

100 

(200) 

0 

0 

200 

2.8 

1.5 

3.7 

7.3 

5.5 

8.8 

12.4 

9.5 

15.4 

6.7 

— 

32.2 

71.3 

26.5 

— 

4.8 

9.2 

3.0 

2.0 

3.3 

(4.8) 

3.3 

0.0 

33.3 

— Not available.
 a

 Total for 2007–08 includes 2,690 students with unknown institution type.
 b

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

 New majors were added to the eligible lists for life sciences and multidisciplinary studies for 2007–08 (see Appendix A).
 

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2008
 

(NCES 2009-020), tables 193 and 194; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 2006–07 and 

2007–08 Federal Pell Grant Program End-of-Year Reports; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid,
 

COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

— 24 — 
 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

ACG Program Participation 

The number of institutions participating in the ACG program has increased. 

All institutions participating in the Pell Grant program are required by law to participate in the 

ACG program. However, nonparticipation in the ACG program does not necessarily mean 

noncompliance with the law, because a Pell Grant-eligible institution may not have any students 

qualifying for an ACG. For example, institutions offering primarily certificate programs or only 

a few degree programs (as many private institutions do) might not have any ACG-eligible 

students. 

In 2007–08, 4,100 degree-awarding institutions were eligible to participate in the Federal Pell 

Grant program, up from 3,600 a year earlier (Appendix Table D-1 and U.S. Department of 

Education 2009, Appendix Table E-1). The number of institutions participating in the ACG 

program (defined as making at least one award) also increased (from 2,800 to 3,000), but the 

increase was proportionately less. As a result, the percentage of Pell Grant–eligible institutions 

awarding ACGs declined, from 78 to 73 percent. This decline may not be particularly 

meaningful, however. The actual numbers of eligible and participating institutions are difficult to 

determine because some multi-campus institutions report data separately by campus and others 

report centrally.16 Therefore, what may appear to be a change in the number of eligible or 

participating institutions may reflect, in part, a change in how the data are reported. A more 

important point is that most Pell Grant recipients had access to an ACG if they qualified for one. 

In both years, about 90 percent of the students with Pell Grants were enrolled in institutions that 

awarded ACGs and thus could have received one if they met the nonfinancial criteria. 

Among all types of institutions, public four-year ones had the highest participation rate in the 

ACG program in both 2006–07 and 2007–08 (about 95 percent) (Figure 1). For-profit four-year 

institutions showed the most notable increase in the rate of participation (from 62 to 73 percent), 

but the number of such institutions is relatively small (just 164 in 2007–08). See Appendix Table 

D-1 for more detail on institutional participation. 

The number of students receiving an ACG increased by a third. 

In the first year of the program, 301,700 students received an ACG (Table 5). A combination of 

factors may account for the discrepancy between the actual and expected numbers of students, 

including a lack of awareness about the new programs, start-up difficulties common to all new 

programs, the difficulties that institutions had in identifying and verifying student eligibility, and 

16 Many community college systems and for-profit institutions with multiple campuses do not provide information at 

the campus level. 

— 25 — 
CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS

— 26 — 

the problem of accurately estimating the number of students meeting complex eligibility 

requirements with available data.17

In the second year of the program, the number of students receiving an ACG rose by 97,000 

(or 32 percent) to 398,700. Some of this increase reflects the 12 percent increase in Pell Grant 

awards to first- and second-year students at ACG-participating institutions (from 3.0 to 

Figure 1.—Percentage of eligible institutions awarding ACGs, by type of institution: 2006–07 and 2007–08

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

(Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).

25

30

73

85

82

95

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

2006–07

2007–08

3.4 million), which expanded the pool of potentially eligible students. However, if the number of 

ACGs awarded had increased in proportion to the Pell Grant awards (i.e., by 12 percent), only 

339,000 (rather than 398,700) students would have received an ACG in 2007–08. This suggests 

that an additional 60,000 students received ACGs in the second program year for other reasons. 

More students may have met the qualifications or institutions may have identified more eligible 

students. In addition, the pool of potential recipients was expanded because, in 2007–08, students 

who delayed entering college for one year became eligible for the grant, while in 2006–07, only 

immediate college entrants were eligible due to the requirement of high school graduation after 

Jan. 1, 2006. 

 

17 See Appendix G for a comparison of program participation, Department of Education Goals, and estimates of 

eligibility. 
CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS

— 27 — 

The increase in ACG awards was particularly notable at two-year institutions, where the number 

of students receiving ACG awards increased by 71 percent, from 38,300 in 2006–07 to 65,600 in 

2007–08. Again, had the number increased in proportion to the Pell Grant awards at two-year 

institutions (9.5 percent), only 42,000 students would have received ACG awards, suggesting 

that an additional 24,000 students received ACGs in 2007–08 because more students met the 

qualifications or institutions identified more students meeting the qualifications. 

The number of students with awards at four-year institutions increased from 263,400 in 2006–07 

to 333,100 in 2007–08. Again, had the number of ACGs increased at the same rate as Pell Grant 

awards (15.4 percent), only 303,900 students would have received ACG awards, suggesting that 

an additional 29,200 students received ACGs in 2007–08 because more students met the 

qualifications or institutions identified more students meeting them. 

The percentage of Pell Grant recipients receiving an ACG increased only slightly. 

Despite the growth in the number of ACGs awarded, many Pell Grant recipients simply do not 

meet all the criteria for an ACG. The proportion of Pell Grant recipients who received an ACG 

remained low, increasing only slightly overall, from 10 percent (U.S. Department of Education 

2009, Appendix Table E-2) to 12 percent (Appendix Table D-2). The percentage rose at all types 

of institutions, but by varying amounts (Figure 2). 

Figure 2.—Percentage of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients who also received an ACG, by type 

Figure 2.—of institution attended: 2006–07 and 2007–08

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

(Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).

2

2

4

10

25

26

1

1

3

8

22

23

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

2006–07

2007–08
 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

Most of the grants went to students at public and private nonprofit four-year institutions. 

Of the approximately 400,000 ACGs awarded in 2007–08, more than half (225,200) went to 

students at public four-year institutions (Appendix Table D-2).18 Another 100,700 went to 

students at private nonprofit four-year institutions.19 A much smaller number went to students at 

public two-year institutions (61,900), even though these students accounted for almost half of all 

first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients. 

The relatively small number of ACGs awarded to students at public two-year institutions reflects, 

in part, the large proportions of students attending these institutions who would have been 

ineligible because they attended part-time, were enrolled in certificate or nondegree programs, or 

were not recent high school graduates.20 When ACG eligibility is expanded in 2009–10 to 

include students in certificate programs at degree-granting institutions and part-time students, the 

number of grants and the percentage of Pell Grant recipients receiving an ACG should both 

increase at public two-year institutions. 

A majority of ACG students have received the maximum award. 

Colleges disburse ACGs and Pell Grants one term at a time, with students receiving one-half or 

one-third of the award each term depending on their colleges’ academic calendar. Among firstyear ACG recipients, about three-quarters (77 percent) were enrolled for the entire academic year 

in 2007–08 and received the maximum of $750. This was a decline from the previous year, 

however, when 83 percent received the full amount (Figure 3). The average ACG for first-year 

students was about $680 in both years. 

Among second-year ACG recipients, about two-thirds (68 percent) were enrolled for the full year 

in 2007–08 and received the maximum of $1,300. This represents a slight decline from 2006–07, 

when 72 percent received the maximum. The average ACG for second-year students was about 

the same in both years ($1,100). 

Students would have received less than the full amount if they attended only part of the year, and 

first-year students would have received more than $750 if they advanced to second-year status 

during the year. Additional students may have received less than the full amount because the full 

amount would have exceeded their financial need, but this was probably rare—most students not 

receiving the maximum received one-third, one-half, or two-thirds of the full amount, suggesting 

partial-year attendance as the primary explanation rather than a reduced award. 

18 Of these, 7,300 recipients attended institutions participating in the ACG program only, and 217,900 attended
 

institutions participating in both the ACG and National SMART Grant programs.

19 Of these, 6,800 recipients attended institutions participating in the ACG program only, and 93,900 attended
 

institutions participating in both the ACG and National SMART Grant programs.

20 In 2003–04, 53 percent of students at public two-year institutions were age 24 or older, 66 percent attended parttime, and 24 percent were enrolled in certificate or nondegree programs (Horn and Nevill 2006).
 

— 28 — 
—

Figure 3.—

Figure 3.	 Percentage distribution of first- and second-year ACG recipients by amount received and 

average amount received: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Percent 

$685 $1,125 $680 $1,095 

First-year Second-year First-year Second-year 

2006–07 2007–08 

83 

72 77 

68 

1 

2 

1 

3 

14 

20 17 25 

1 1 1 2 1 5 4 3 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Other amounts 

One-third ($250/$433) 

One-half ($375/$650) 

Two-thirds ($500/$867) 

Full award ($750/$1,300) 

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) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

Almost half of all participating institutions awarded 50 or fewer ACGs. 

Participating institutions awarded an average of 134 ACGs in 2007–08, up from 107 the previous 

year (Appendix Table D-3 and U.S. Department of Education 2009, Appendix Table E-3). 

However, 46 percent of all participating institutions awarded 50 or fewer ACGs in 2007–08, 

making this a relatively small program at many institutions (Figure 4). 

Many public four-year institutions handled relatively high volumes—52 percent awarded 

between 201 and 1,000 ACGs, and another 7 percent awarded more than 1,000 (Appendix Table 

D-4). Other types of institutions, however, had relatively few students. Forty percent of private 

nonprofit four-year institutions and 60 percent of public two-year institutions awarded 50 or 

fewer grants. Appendix Table D-5 provides additional detail on the distribution of ACGs. 

— 29 — 
—

Figure 4.—

Figure 4.	 Percentage distribution of institutions participating in the ACG program by the number of 

ACGs awarded: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Percent 

50 

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

Number of ACGs awarded 

2006–07 2007–08 

22 

33 

19 

12 10 

4 

17 

29 

21 

16 

11 

6 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

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) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

Just over three-quarters of all ACGs were awarded to first-year students in each of the first 

two years of the program. 

In both 2006–07 and 2007–08, 77 percent of all ACG recipients were in their first year of 

college, and 23 percent were in their second year (Figure 5). In contrast, 65 percent of all 

recipients with Pell Grants only were in their first year in 2007–08, and 35 percent were in their 

second year (Appendix Table D-6). The lower percentage of ACG than Pell-only awards going 

to second-year students suggests that it is difficult for low-income students to meet the 

cumulative 3.0 GPA required for an ACG. 

Because the ACG program was not signed into law until spring 2006, students who received an 

ACG for 2006–07 as a second-year student could not have known a year earlier that earning a 

3.0 GPA could make them eligible for this grant. In contrast, students who received an ACG for 

2006–07 as a first-year student would have known that if they earned a 3.0 GPA, they could get 

another, even larger, ACG in their second year. Therefore, it might be reasonable to expect that 

this prospect would have motivated some first-year ACG recipients in 2006–07 to work hard for 

a 3.0 GPA and retain eligibility. If this were the case, however, the proportion of grants going to 

second-year students should have increased in 2007–08. Because no such increase occurred, 

— 30 — 
Figure 5. —Percentage distribution of ACG recipients by class level: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Percent 

100 

77 77 80 

60 

40 

23 23 

20 

0 

First-year Second-year 

Class level 

2006–07 2007–08 

NOTE: If the student changed levels after the first term, the student is counted among first-year students. 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) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

AND AWARENESS 
 

either the grants did not have the expected motivating effect or the effect was overshadowed by 

other factors. 

A majority of ACG recipients were women. 

Sixty-two percent of all ACG recipients in 2007–08 were women (Appendix Table D-8). 

However, women accounted for an even greater percentage (67 percent) of all first- and secondyear students with a Pell Grant but no ACG. This means that women were less likely than men to 

receive an ACG. 

Among Pell Grant recipients, younger students were the primary beneficiaries of the ACG 

program. 

To be eligible for an ACG in 2007–08, students had to be recent high school graduates and in 

their first two years of college. As a result, about half of ACG students were age 18 or younger, 

and almost all of the rest were between age 19 and 23 (Figure 6). In contrast, nearly half of the 

first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients who did not receive an ACG were age 24 or older 

(Appendix Table D-8). 

— 31 — 
—

Figure 6.—

Figure 6.	 Percentage distribution of ACG recipients and students who received Pell Grants only at 

ACG-participating institutions by age: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Percent 

100 

2006–07	 2007–08 

80 

18 or younger 19–23 24 or older 18 or younger 19–23 24 or older 

ACG Pell Grant only 

54 

45 

12 

42 

47 

0 

20 

40 

60 51 49 

11 

41 

48 

# # 

# 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) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

Although all ACG recipients were from low-income families, they were disproportionately at 

the higher end of the income distribution of Pell-recipient families. 

In 2007–08, 8 percent of dependent ACG recipients came from families with incomes of $50,000 

or more (compared with 5 percent of their counterparts who received Pell Grants only), and 

another 12 percent came from families with incomes of $40,000–49,999 (compared with 9 

percent of their Pell Grant–only counterparts) (Figure 7). The pattern was similar in 2006–07. 

The federal Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is a measure of a family’s financial strength 

and indicates how much of a student’s and (for dependent students) family’s financial resources 

should be available to help pay for a student’s education.21 The EFC is an index number and is 

used to determine the Pell Grant amount. Students with a zero EFC are the neediest and are 

eligible for the maximum Pell Grant award. As income increases, so does the EFC. Therefore, 

ACG recipients tended to come from the higher end of the EFC distribution as well as the higher 

end of the income distribution for dependent students (Appendix Table D-10 and U.S. 

21 For financially independent students, only the student’s and spouse’s financial resources are considered. Students 

under age 24 are usually considered financially dependent for federal financial aid eligibility purposes. To be 

categorized as independent, a student under age 24 must have a dependent or be one of the following: married, a 

graduate student, a ward of the court, an orphan, or a veteran. 

— 32 — 
CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

Department of Education 2009, Appendix Table E-10). The corresponding EFC distributions for 

independent students are shown in the same tables. Among dependent students, the percentage of 

first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients receiving an ACG was about 4 percentage points 

higher in 2007–08 than in 2006–07 at each EFC level (Figure 8). 

— 33 — 

—

Figure 7.—

Figure 7. Percentage distribution of dependent ACG recipients and dependent students who received 

Pell Grants only at ACG-participating institutions by parents’ income: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Percent 

50
 2006–07 

40
 

28 30
 

3
 

0
 

Less than $10,000– $20,000– $30,000– $40,000– $50,000
 

$10,000 19,999 29,999 39,999 49,999 or more
 

6
 

22 22 25
 23
 19
 19
 20
 15
 11
 7 10
 

Income of dependent students’ parents 

Percent 

2007–08 50
 

40
 

30
 25
 24
 21 22 21
 19
 19

20
 16

12
 9
 8
 5
 

0 

Less than $10,000– $20,000– $30,000– $40,000– $50,000 

$10,000 19,999 29,999 39,999 49,999 or more 

10
 

Income of dependent students’ parents 

ACG Pell Grant only 

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) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 
—

Figure 8.—

Figure 8.	 Percentage of dependent first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients at ACG-participating 

institutions who received an ACG, by Expected Family Contribution: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Percent
 

100
 

80
 

60
 

40
 31 33 30	 29 27 26	 27 23 19 15 20 

0 

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

Dependent student EFC 

2006–07 2007–08 

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 his or her 

education. The EFC is an index number 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 in 2006–07. In 2007–08, 

the corresponding averages were $11,800, $23,800, $33,600, $39,100, and $44,500. 

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

(Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008). 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

As EFC increased, the ACG contributed relatively more than the Pell Grant to the combined 

award. 

First- and second-year students with ACGs received an average Pell Grant of $3,000 and an 

average ACG of $770, for a combined average of $3,800. First- and second-year students with 

Pell Grants only received an average of $2,500 (Appendix Table D-11). Because the ACG 

amount is income-based only in terms of being restricted to those eligible for Pell Grants, the 

average ACG for dependent students was roughly the same across EFC levels (between $750 and 

$810 in both 2006–07 and 2007–08) (Figure 9 and Appendix Table D-12). The minor differences 

are due to a slightly different mix of first- and second-year students at each EFC level. On the 

other hand, Pell Grant amounts, which are based on need, decline as EFC increases. In 2007–08, 

first- and second-year dependent students with a zero EFC received an average Pell Grant of 

$4,000, which was much larger than their average ACG of $750. In contrast, their counterparts 

with an EFC of 3,000 or more received an average Pell Grant of $760, which was less than their 

average ACG of $790. 

— 34 — 
—

Figure 9.—

Figure 9.	 Average Pell Grant and ACG amounts awarded to dependent first- and second-year students 

with ACGs, by Expected Family Contribution: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Average grant 

amount 2006–07 

$5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

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

Dependent student EFC 

$3,800 $3,500 

$2,400 

$1,500 

$630 

$760 $810 

$800 

$810 

$810 

ACG Average grant 

amount Pell Grant 

$5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

$4,000 $3,700 

$2,700 

$1,700 

$760 

$750 $800 

$790 

$790 

$790 

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

Dependent student EFC 

2007–08 

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 his or her 

education. The EFC is an index number 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 in 2006–07. In 2007–08, 

the corresponding averages were $11,800, $23,800, $33,600, $39,100, and $44,500. 

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

(Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008). 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

— 35 — 
 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

Figure 10 and Appendix Table D-12 show how ACG and Pell Grant dollars are spread across 

EFC levels. In 2007–08, students with an EFC of less than 1,000 received 75 percent of all Pell 

Grant dollars and 56 percent of all ACG dollars. Students with higher EFCs received a much 

greater share of ACG dollars (45 percent) than Pell Grant dollars (26 percent). The pattern was 

similar in 2006–07. 

Completing the ED course-defined high school curriculum was the most common way that 

students met the academic requirements for an ACG. 

As indicated earlier, there were several ways to meet the academic requirements for an ACG. 

Students may have qualified on more than one basis, but their institutions reported just one and 

may have chosen the easiest to verify. The distribution of recipients according to the way in 

which they formally qualified for an ACG was about the same in 2006–07 and 2007–08. In both 

years, more than half qualified by completing the ED course-defined high school curriculum 

(Figure 11). Next most common was meeting the requirements of a state-designated rigorous 

program of courses (35 percent in 2006–07 and 37 percent in 2007–08). 

Participation rates varied widely by state. 

Table 6 shows the states ranked from high to low according the percentage of first- and secondyear Pell Grant recipients—at four-year institutions only—who received an ACG in 2007–08. 

This table is based on students’ state of residence, regardless of where they attended college. 

Massachusetts residents had the highest level of participation (37 percent of Pell Grant recipients 

from that state received an ACG), and Utah had the lowest level (5 percent). The overall 

participation rate at four-year institutions was slightly higher in 2007–08 than in 2006–07, and 

there were increases in all but a few states. 

Table 7 shows data by state for students at two-year institutions ranked by their rate of ACG 

participation. Most states had low rates of participation, but some improved in 2007–08. The rate 

of ACG participation in two-year institutions was low in part because, as already indicated, these 

institutions have large numbers of part-time students and students enrolled in certificate 

programs. While these students were eligible for Pell Grants in 2007–08, they were not eligible 

for ACGs. When this eligibility requirement changes in 2009–10, participation rates at two-year 

institutions should increase. Participation in the ACG program may also be lower in two-year 

institutions because these institutions often do not require high school transcripts and may have 

found it difficult to verify rigorous high school course-taking. Finally, the rate of ACG 

participation may be lower because students at two-year institutions may be less likely than those 

at four-year institutions to have completed a rigorous high school curriculum. 

Appendix Table E-1 displays participation data by state arranged alphabetically (including 

students in both two- and four-year institutions). 

— 36 — 
—

Figure 10.—

Figure 10.	 Percentage distributions of Pell Grant, ACG, and combined dollars for dependent first- and 

second-year students by Expected Family Contribution: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Percent 

100 2006–07 

80 

60 46 43 

40 32 28 26 22 

15 17 15 16 20 10 12 8 3 5

0 

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

Dependent student EFC 

Percent 

100 2007–08 

80 

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

Dependent student EFC 

Pell Grant dollars ACG dollars Combined dollars 

52 

23 

14 8 4 

37 

19 16 15 14 

49 

22 

14 10 6 

0 

20 

40 

60 

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 his or her 

education. The EFC is an index number 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 in 2006–07. In 2007–08, 

the corresponding averages were $11,800, $23,800, $33,600, $39,100, and $44,500. 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) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008). 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

AND AWARENESS 
 

— 37 — 
—

Figure 11.—

Figure 11.	 Percentage distribution of ACG recipients by type of qualification for an ACG: 2006–07 

and 2007–08 

ED course-defined 

curriculum 

57% 

State 

program 

35% 

State State 

scholars scholars 

2% Unknown 2%

AP or IB Unknown AP or IB 2% 

5% 4% 2%

ED course-defined 

curriculum 

55% 

State 

program 

37% 

2006–07	 2007–08 

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) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

— 38 — 
Table 6.—	 Number of first- and second-year students at four-year ACG-participating institutions with 

Table 6.—Pell Grants and number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, by state of 

Table 6.—student’s residence: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Number of 

first- and Number of 

second-year Pell Grant 

students with recipients Percent of first- and second-year 

State of student’s Pell Grants with ACGs Pell Grant recipients with ACGs 

residence 2007–08 2007–08 2006–07 2007–08 Change

 Total 1,632,721 330,905 18.5 20.3 1.8 

Massachusetts 22,362 8,198 32.0 36.7 4.7 

Vermont 3,231 1,052 26.4 32.6 6.2 

Iowa 12,850 4,073 26.3 31.7 5.4 

Nebraska 9,517 2,986 29.2 31.4 2.2 

California 108,959 33,678 28.8 30.9 2.1 

Pennsylvania 59,872 18,423 28.1 30.8 2.7 

Maine 8,344 2,368 24.8 28.4 3.6 

Connecticut 10,731 3,014 22.7 28.1 5.4 

Wisconsin 26,383 7,303 25.3 27.7 2.4 

Minnesota 24,515 6,593 23.8 26.9 3.1 

South Carolina 23,938 6,171 21.3 25.8 4.4 

New Hampshire 5,738 1,473 20.7 25.7 5.0 

North Carolina 42,379 10,679 24.4 25.2 0.8 

New Jersey 31,508 7,892 24.4 25.0 0.7 

North Dakota 4,599 1,121 20.6 24.4 3.7 

Rhode Island 4,443 1,056 19.7 23.8 4.1 

Oregon 11,016 2,556 20.7 23.2 2.5 

Louisiana 27,563 6,370 20.2 23.1 2.9 

Illinois 53,873 12,289 18.7 22.8 4.1 

Indiana 42,963 9,647 17.5 22.5 4.9 

South Dakota 6,650 1,485 19.2 22.3 3.1 

Washington 19,168 4,180 17.7 21.8 4.1 

Texas 114,428 24,937 20.0 21.8 1.8 

Maryland 20,615 4,481 20.3 21.7 1.5 

Ohio 79,820 16,978 20.9 21.3 0.4 

Kentucky 27,265 5,792 17.3 21.2 3.9 

Kansas 12,649 2,600 20.2 20.6 0.4 

Oklahoma 21,059 4,114 16.5 19.5 3.0 

Colorado 20,119 3,864 16.6 19.2 2.6 

Tennessee 36,756 6,627 15.2 18.0 2.9 

Virginia 31,514 5,636 19.7 17.9 -1.9 

New York 152,067 26,884 19.4 17.7 -1.7 

Georgia 62,581 10,958 16.0 17.5 1.5 

Idaho 11,458 1,923 13.6 16.8 3.2 

Delaware 2,947 494 12.2 16.8 4.6 

Wyoming 1,280 213 16.5 16.6 0.1 

Montana 7,184 1,194 13.8 16.6 2.9 

Hawaii 4,522 732 14.2 16.2 2.0 

Missouri 36,080 5,810 14.8 16.1 1.3 

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

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

— 39 — 
Table 6.—	 Number of first- and second-year students at four-year ACG-participating institutions with 

Table 6.—Pell Grants and number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, by state of 

Table 6.—student’s residence: 2006–07 and 2007–08—Continued 

Number of 

first- and Number of 

second-year Pell Grant 

students with recipients Percent of first- and second-year 

State of student’s 

residence 

Arkansas 

Pell Grants

2007–08 

20,305 

 with ACGs 

2007–08 

3,243 

Pell Gran

2006–07 

15.9 

t recipients with A

2007–08 

16.0 

CGs 

Change 

0.0 

District of Columbia 2,885 452 11.7 15.7 4.0 

Mississippi 16,574 2,563 16.1 15.5 -0.7 

West Virginia 12,419 1,870 12.6 15.1 2.4 

Michigan 64,039 8,263 9.9 12.9 3.0 

Florida 127,078 15,363 11.3 12.1 0.8 

Arizona 18,336 1,987 7.3 10.8 3.5 

Alabama 28,174 2,928 10.0 10.4 0.4 

New Mexico 17,198 1,566 6.5 9.1 2.6 

Nevada 10,143 682 11.3 6.7 -4.6 

Alaska 3,824 252 3.5 6.6 3.1 

Utah 15,254 837 4.1 5.5 1.4 

Puerto Rico 87,705 14,093 13.4 16.1 2.6 

All others* 5,841 962 20.4 16.5 -3.9 

* Including all other U.S. jurisdictions except Puerto Rico (i.e., American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia,
 

Guam, the Marshall Islands, the Northern Marianas, Palau, and the Virgin Islands). Also included are ACG-eligible students
 

with unknown residence state.
 

NOTE: This table is based on unduplicated records. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs but student-reported 

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0708 

(Nov. 25, 2008).
 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

— 40 — 
Table 7.—	 Number of first- and second-year students at two-year ACG-participating institutions with Pell 

Table 7.—Grants and number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, by state of student’s 

Table 7.—residence: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Number of 

first- and Number of 

second-year Pell Grant 

students with recipients Percent of first- and second-year 

State of student’s Pell Grants with ACGs Pell Grant recipients with ACGs 

residence 2007–08 2007–08 2006–07 2007–08 Change

 Total 1,668,858 64,878 2.5 3.9 1.4 

Texas 153,032 11,493 5.2 7.5 2.3 

Mississippi 39,907 2,878 3.6 7.2 3.6 

Nebraska 11,013 791 4.4 7.2 2.8 

Maine 4,893 345 2.0 7.1 5.0 

Florida 69,202 4,876 5.5 7.0 1.6 

Wyoming 2,912 187 5.4 6.4 1.1 

New York 62,258 3,998 3.5 6.4 3.0 

Oklahoma 18,210 1,117 5.5 6.1 0.6 

Kansas 15,190 871 3.3 5.7 2.5 

Tennessee 32,555 1,755 3.8 5.4 1.6 

Arkansas 21,907 1,146 4.0 5.2 1.2 

Alabama 32,144 1,657 3.8 5.2 1.3 

Wisconsin 27,382 1,318 2.0 4.8 2.8 

Montana 3,094 145 4.2 4.7 0.5 

New Hampshire 2,964 138 2.7 4.7 1.9 

Louisiana 19,795 896 3.6 4.5 0.9 

Pennsylvania 55,499 2,391 2.2 4.3 2.1 

New Jersey 42,542 1,795 3.1 4.2 1.2 

Iowa 23,261 960 1.8 4.1 2.4 

North Dakota 2,636 107 5.3 4.1 -1.2 

North Carolina 65,614 2,578 2.1 3.9 1.8 

South Dakota 2,625 102 3.5 3.9 0.4 

Missouri 34,785 1,337 2.9 3.8 1.0 

Hawaii 4,197 154 1.2 3.7 2.4 

South Carolina 31,116 1,138 2.4 3.7 1.2 

Minnesota 31,060 1,066 2.1 3.4 1.4 

Utah 6,073 206 1.0 3.4 2.4 

Maryland 26,465 808 2.0 3.1 1.1 

Idaho 4,552 137 1.5 3.0 1.5 

Rhode Island 5,089 152 0.4 3.0 2.5 

Massachusetts 24,230 719 1.8 3.0 1.2 

Georgia 47,449 1,241 1.9 2.6 0.7 

Virginia 33,455 867 2.1 2.6 0.5 

Indiana 34,602 894 1.5 2.6 1.0 

Connecticut 13,956 349 0.7 2.5 1.8 

California 245,543 6,125 1.1 2.5 1.4 

Ohio 71,417 1,742 1.5 2.4 0.9 

Illinois 80,224 1,879 1.5 2.3 0.8 

Delaware 3,848 89 1.3 2.3 1.0 

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

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

— 41 — 
Table 7.—	 Number of first- and second-year students at two-year ACG-participating institutions with Pell 

Table 7.—Grants and number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, by state of student’s 

Table 7.—residence: 2006–07 and 2007–08—Continued 

Number of 

first- and Number of 

second-year Pell Grant 

students with recipients Percent of first- and second-year 

State of student’s 

residence 

Alaska 

Pell Grants

2007–08 

391 

 with ACGs 

2007–08 

9 

Pell Grant recipients with ACGs 

2006–07 2007–08 Change 

1.6 2.3 0.7 

West Virginia 5,893 122 1.4 2.1 0.6 

District of Columbia 595 12 3.1 2.0 -1.1 

Oregon 24,113 485 1.1 2.0 0.9 

Kentucky 32,087 634 1.1 2.0 0.8 

Arizona 33,102 594 0.7 1.8 1.1 

New Mexico 11,504 178 1.0 1.5 0.5 

Washington 33,142 488 0.7 1.5 0.8 

Michigan 72,464 948 0.7 1.3 0.6 

Vermont 2,083 24 1.0 1.2 0.1 

Nevada 3,747 43 1.0 1.1 0.1 

Colorado 22,780 182 0.6 0.8 0.2 

Puerto Rico 14,962 579 3.0 3.9 0.9 

All others* 5,299 133 2.6 2.5 -0.1 

* Including all other U.S. jurisdictions except Puerto Rico (i.e., American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia,
 

Guam, the Marshall Islands, the Northern Marianas, Palau, and the Virgin Islands). Also included are ACG-eligible students
 

with unknown residence state.
 

NOTE: This table is based on unduplicated records. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs but student-reported for
 

Pell Grants. Students with 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 AY0708 

(Nov. 25, 2008).
 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

National SMART Grant Program Participation 

In 2006–07, there were 1.2 million third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients, and the 

Department of Education initially estimated that 80,000 of them would be eligible for a National 

SMART Grant in 2006–07 (Table 5). As happened with the ACG program, actual participation 

has been lower than expected. 

To participate in the National SMART Grant program, institutions must be eligible to participate 

in the Pell Grant program and offer bachelor’s degrees in one of the designated science, 

technology, engineering, mathematics, or critical language fields. In both 2006–07 and 2007–08, 

approximately 2,100 four-year institutions were eligible to participate in the Pell Grant program, 

and the number participating in the National SMART Grant program increased just slightly 

(from 1,425 to 1,478 institutions) (Appendix Table D-1 and U.S. Department of Education 2009, 

Appendix Table E-1). 

— 42 — 
CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS

— 43 — 

National SMART Grant participation rates in 2007–08 were highest at public four-year 

institutions (85 percent) and lowest at for-profit four-year institutions (43 percent) (Figure 12). 

Participation rates at all types of institutions were about the same as in the previous year. 

Institutional participation rates reflect the fact that not all colleges offer National SMART Grant–

eligible majors. However, most third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients (88 percent) were 

enrolled in an institution that awarded National SMART Grants (Appendix Table D-1). See 

Appendix Table D-1 for additional detail about institutional participation. 

Figure 12.—Percentage of eligible institutions participating in the SMART Grant program, by type of 

Figure 12.—institution: 2006–07 and 2007–08

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

(Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).

43

67

85

41

65

88

0 20 40 60 80 100

For-profit four-year

Private nonprofit 

four-year

Public four-year

Percent of institutions participating

2006–07

2007–08

Private nonprofit

four-year

The number of students receiving National SMART Grants has increased but only slightly. 

In 2006–07, 62,400 students received a National SMART Grant (Table 5). As with the ACG 

program, the discrepancy between estimated and actual participation may be attributable to a 

combination of factors, including a lack of awareness about the new programs, start-up 

difficulties common to all new programs, the difficulties that institutions had in identifying and 

verifying student eligibility, and the problem of accurately estimating the number of students 

meeting complex eligibility requirements with available data. 
 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

The number of students receiving a National SMART Grant increased to 65,400 (5 percent) in 

2007–08. Some of this 3,000 increase was due to expanded eligibility. About 1,800 National 

SMART grants were awarded to students in newly eligible fields of study (see Appendix A for 

new fields). 

As with the ACG program, receipt of a National SMART Grant is tied to Pell Grant eligibility. 

If the number of Pell Grant recipients changes, so does the pool of students potentially eligible 

for a National SMART Grant. The number of Pell Grants awarded to third- and fourth-year 

students at institutions participating in the SMART Grant program increased by 7 percent 

between 2006–07 and 2007–08, from 1.2 to 1.3 million students (Table 5). Had the number of 

National SMART Grants grown at the same rate in 2007–08 as the Pell Grant awards among 

third- and fourth-year students, 66,600 students would have received SMART Grant awards—an 

excess of 2,200 over the number actually awarded. In short, the increase in SMART Grant 

awards did not keep pace with the increase in Pell Grant awards. 

The majority of the 2007–08 National SMART Grant recipients were enrolled in public fouryear institutions (43,900). Another 17,000 were enrolled in private nonprofit four-year 

institutions, and the remaining 4,600 in for-profit four-year institutions. Appendix Table D-2 

provides additional detail about the number and distribution of recipients by type of institution. 

Just over half of all National SMART Grant recipients received the maximum $4,000 award. 

In 2007–08, about 55 percent of the National SMART Grant recipients received the full-year 

award of $4,000 (Figure 13). As in the case of ACGs, this proportion is less than in the previous 

year, when it was about 60 percent. Most of the rest received one-half, one-third, or two-thirds of 

that amount, most likely because they attended only part of the year. Seven percent received 

some other amount, which would include students who were enrolled in colleges with 

nontraditional calendars (primarily for-profit institutions) and possibly some of the students who 

received reduced National SMART Grant awards because their financial need was fully met with 

a Pell Grant and partial National SMART Grant. 

The National SMART Grant program is small for most institutions. 

Across all types of institutions, the average number of awards in 2007–08 was 44, the same as in 

2006–07 (Appendix Table D-3 and U.S. Department of Education 2009, Appendix Table E-3). 

Public four-year colleges had the highest average number of awards (83), and private nonprofit 

four-year colleges, the lowest (20). For-profit four-year colleges were in between, with an 

average of 47 awards. 

— 44 — 
—

Figure 13.—

Figure 13.	 Percentage distribution of third- and fourth-year SMART Grant recipients by amount received 

and average amount received: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Percent 

4 

4 

Other amounts 

One-third ($1,333) 

One-half ($2,000) 

Two-thirds ($2,667) 

Full award ($4,000) 

Third-year Fourth-year 

2006–07 

Third-year Fourth-year 

2007–08 

59 62 55 54 

3 3 

4 

27 25 

28 32 

4 3 5 

7 7 8 6 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

$3,252 $3,250 $3,194 $3,073 

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) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

In both 2006–07 and 2007–08, 80 percent of all participating institutions awarded 50 or fewer 

National SMART Grants, and 38 percent awarded 10 or fewer (Figure 14). Almost all private 

nonprofit four-year institutions (94 percent) and most for-profit four-year institutions (83 

percent) awarded 50 or fewer grants in 2007–08 (Appendix Table D-4). Among public four-year 

institutions, which had the highest average number of grants, just 10 percent awarded 200 or 

more grants. 

— 45 — 
—

Figure 14.—

Figure 14.	 Percentage distribution of institutions participating in the SMART Grant Program by the 

number of SMART Grant recipients: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Percent 

50 

42 42 

38 38 40 

30 

20 

10 10 

10 6 6 

3 3 1 1 

0 

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

Number of SMART Grant recipients 

2006–07 2007–08 

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) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

National SMART Grant awards were evenly divided between third- and fourth-year students. 

In 2007–08, about 5 percent each of third-year and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients received a 

National SMART Grant (Appendix Table D-7). Because the number of Pell Grant recipients was 

about the same at both levels, 50 percent of the National SMART Grants went to third-year 

students, and 50 percent went to fourth-year students (Figure 15). Appendix Table D-7 shows 

additional detail on class-level participation by type of institution. 

— 46 — 
—

 

Figure 15. Percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by class level: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Percent
 

100
 

80
 

60
 52 50 50 48
 

40
 

20 

0 

Third-year Fourth-year 

Class level 

2006–07 2007–08 

NOTE: If a student changed levels after the first term, the student is counted among third-year students. 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) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

AND AWARENESS 
 

Men received a disproportionate share of National SMART Grants. 

The majority of third- and fourth-year students in the Pell Grant program were women in 

2007–08 (62 percent), but more than half of the National SMART Grants (58 percent) went to 

men (Figure 16). This pattern reflects the predominance of men in eligible fields. In 2005–06, 

women earned less than half of all bachelor’s degrees in physical sciences and science 

technologies (42 percent), engineering and engineering technologies (18 percent), mathematics 

and statistics (45 percent), and computer and information sciences (21 percent) (Planty et al. 

2008, Indicator 27). Only in biological and biomedical sciences did women earn a majority of 

bachelor’s degrees (62 percent). Appendix Table D-8 presents more detail on the demographic 

characteristics of National SMART Grant recipients. 

National SMART Grant recipients tended to be younger than students who received a Pell 

Grant only. 

Thirty-one percent of the National SMART Grant recipients were age 24 or older, compared 

with 50 percent of third- and fourth-year students at participating institutions who received Pell 

Grants only (Figure 16 and Appendix Table D-8). This reflects the fact many older students 

— 47 — 
—

Figure 16.—

Figure 16.—

Figure 16.	 Percentages of SMART Grant recipients and of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant–only recipients 

at SMART Grant–participating institutions who were male and who were age 24 or older: 

2006–07 and 2007–08 

80 

100 

Percent 

58 58 

Male 

2006–07 

24 or older 

SMART Grant Pell Grant only 

Male 

2007–08 

24 or older 

33 

38 

50 

0 

20 

40 

60 

31 

38 

50 

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

(Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008). 

 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

AND AWARENESS 
 

enroll part-time.22 Because they were younger, National SMART Grant recipients were also 

more likely than students with Pell Grants only to be dependent (62 vs. 42 percent) (Appendix 

Table D-9). National SMART Grant recipients tended to be older than ACG recipients because 

the National SMART Grant program did not require recipients to be recent high school 

graduates. 

Dependent National SMART Grant recipients were overrepresented at the higher end of the 

family income distribution of Pell Grant recipients. 

As was true for dependent ACG recipients, dependent National SMART Grant recipients were 

overrepresented at the higher end of the family income distribution of Pell Grant recipients. In 

2007–08, 22 percent of the dependent National SMART Grant recipients came from families 

with incomes of $40,000 or more, compared with 18 percent of third- and fourth-year students 

who received Pell Grants only (Figure 17). The incomes of independent students were not 

22 In 2003–04, about 30–40 percent of students in various age categories of 24 or older were enrolled part-time for 

all or part of the year (Horn and Nevill 2006). 

— 48 — 
—

Figure 17.—

Figure 17.—

Figure 17.	 Of dependent SMART Grant recipients and dependent third- and fourth-year students who 

received Pell Grants only at SMART Grant–participating institutions, percentage distribution 

by parents’ income: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Percent 

50 2006–07 

40 

30 24 23 22 22 

18 21 21 

17 20
 

11
 9 7 10 5 

0 

Less than $10,000– $20,000– $30,000– $40,000– $50,000 

$10,000 19,999 29,999 39,999 49,999 or more 

Income of dependent students’ parents 

Percent 

50 2007–08 

40 

30 

20 23 22 21 20 20 18 17 20 13 11 9 7 10 

0 

Less than $10,000– $20,000– $30,000– $40,000– $50,000 

$10,000 19,999 29,999 39,999 49,999 or more 

Income of dependent students’ parents 

SMART Grant Pell Grant only 

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) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

— 49 — 
 

 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

available, but they are usually very low compared with the parental incomes of dependent 

students.23 

The percentage of Pell Grant recipients receiving a National SMART Grant varied little by 

EFC level. 

Among dependent third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients, 6–8 percent received a National 

SMART Grant, regardless of EFC level (Figure 18). Among independent students, 3–4 percent 

received one (Appendix Table D-10). Dependent students received an average National SMART 

Grant of about $3,200 in 2007–08, regardless of EFC level (Figure 19). However, because the 

average Pell Grant amount declines as EFC increases, the National SMART Grant became 

—

Figure 18.—

Figure 18.—

 

Figure 18. Percentage of dependent third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients at SMART Grant– 

participating institutions who received a SMART Grant, by Expected Family Contribution: 

2006–07 and 2007–08 

Percent 

50 

40 

30 

20 

7 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 7 6 6 

0 

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

Dependent student EFC 

2006–07 2007–08 

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 his or her 

education. The EFC is an index number 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 in 2006–07. In 2007–08, 

the corresponding averages were $10,700, $21,100, $33,200, $38,500, and $43,900. 

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

(Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008). 

23 Full-time independent students tend to have lower incomes than their dependent counterparts in part because they 

have limited time to work. For dependent students, parents’ income is considered; for independent students, only 

their own and spouse’s incomes are considered. Among full-time students enrolled in 2003–04, 85 percent of 

independent students had incomes under $50,000, compared with 39 percent of dependent students (U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student Aid 

Study [NPSAS:04], Data Analysis System). 

— 50 — 
CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

relatively more important as EFC increased. At the zero EFC level, the average Pell Grant 

amount was slightly larger than the average National SMART Grant amount, while at the top 

EFC level (3,000 or more), the average Pell Grant amount was low relative to the average 

National SMART Grant amount ($760 vs. $3,300). See Appendix Table D-12 for more detail. 

Students with a zero EFC (i.e., the lowest income level) received 44 percent of the Pell Grant 

dollars awarded in 2007–08 and 31 percent of the National SMART Grant dollars (Figure 20). 

In both cases, these were slightly larger shares than in 2006–07. 

Life science was the most common major of National SMART Grant recipients. 

Figure 21 shows the distribution of National SMART Grant recipients by field of study. About 

three-quarters majored in one of three fields of study in 2007–08: life sciences (40 percent), 

engineering (21 percent), or computer science (15 percent). The pattern was similar in 2006–07. 

Public four-year institutions awarded more than two-thirds of the National SMART Grants in 

each category except in computer science and critical foreign languages (Figure 22). See 

Appendix Table D-13 for more detail. 

For-profit institutions awarded more than one-third of all the National SMART Grants in 

computer science. 

In 2007–08, for-profit four-year institutions awarded relatively few National SMART Grants 

overall (just 7 percent of the total), but they awarded 38 percent of all the grants in computer 

science (up from 33 percent in 2006–07) (Figure 22). In absolute numbers, for-profit four-year 

institutions awarded almost as many National SMART Grants in this field as public four-year 

institutions did (3,800 vs. 4,000), and they awarded more than private nonprofit institutions 

(2,200) (Appendix Table D-13). For-profit four-year institutions awarded another 600 National 

SMART Grants to students in technology majors. Computer science and technology together 

accounted for 96 percent of the National SMART Grants awarded at for-profit four-year 

institutions (Appendix Table D-13). 

— 51 — 
—

Figure 19.—

Figure 19.	 Average Pell and SMART Grant amounts awarded to dependent third- and fourth-year students 

with SMART Grants, by Expected Family Contribution: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

$3,900 $3,600 $2,500 

$1,500 $630 

$3,200 $3,300 

$3,400 

$3,300 

$3,300 

0 

2,000 

4,000 

6,000 

$8,000 2006–07 

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

Dependent student EFC 

SMART Grant 

Pell Grant 

$8,000 2007–08 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

$3,100 $3,200 

0 

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

Dependent student EFC 

$4,200 $3,800 $2,700 $1,800 $760 

$3,200 

$3,200 

$3,300 

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 his or her 

education. The EFC is an index number 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 in 2006–07. In 2007–08, 

the corresponding averages were $10,700, $21,100, $33,200, $38,500, and $43,900. 

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

(Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008). 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

AND AWARENESS 
 

— 52 — 
—

Figure 20.—

Figure 20.	 Percentage distributions of Pell Grant, SMART Grant, and combined dollars for dependent 

third- and fourth-year students by Expected Family Contribution: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

Percent 

50 2006–07 

41
 

40
 34 32 

28 28 30 25 

20 17 16 16 15 13 13 

9 9 10 

3 

0 

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

Dependent student EFC 

Percent 

50 44 2007–08
 

37 40
 

31
 29 30 25 

22
 

20
 17 14 15	 15 15

12 11 9

10 4 

0 

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

Dependent student EFC 

Pell Grant dollars SMART Grant dollars Combined dollars 

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 his or her 

education. The EFC is an index number 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 in 2006–07. In 2007–08, 

the corresponding averages were $10,700, $21,100, $33,200, $38,500, and $43,900. 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) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008). 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

— 53 — 
CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS

— 54 — 

Figure 21.—Percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by field of study: 2006–07 and 2007–08

* Life sciences includes biological and biomedical sciences, agriculture, natural resources and conservation, and 

psychology (physiological psychology and psychobiology only).

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) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).

1

3

5

6

9

15

21

40

1

3

5

7

10

16

21

38

0 10 20 30 40 50

Critical foreign 

language

Multi/interdisciplinary

Technology

Mathematics

Physical sciences

Computer science

Engineering

Life sciences

2006–07

2007–08

Percent of SMART Grant recipients

*

National SMART Grant participation rates varied widely by state, with no obvious patterns. 

The percentage of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant students at participating institutions who 

received National SMART Grants ranged from highs of 13 percent in Utah and 10 percent in 

Illinois to a low of 2 percent in Delaware in 2007–08 (Table 8). 

Table 8 also shows the percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded in National SMART Grant–

eligible fields by the institutions in each state. No apparent relationship exists between the rate of 

participation in the National SMART Grant program at the state level and the percentage of 

bachelor’s degrees awarded in eligible fields by institutions in that state. State differences could 

reflect varying levels of diligence in administering the program, the mix of offerings at 

institutions in a state, or differing proportions of students meeting the other eligibility 

requirements (full-time attendance, U.S. citizenship, and maintaining a cumulative GPA of 3.0). 
—

Figure 22.—

Figure 22.	 Percentage distribution of SMART Grants by type of institution within field of study: 2006–07 

and 2007–08 

2006–07 

Life sciences * 

43 

56 

57 

71 

70 

73 

76 

72 

24 

44 

43 

9 20 

30 

27 

24 

28 

33 

# 

Engineering # 

Computer science 

Physical sciences # 

Mathematics # 

Technology 

Multi/interdisciplinary # 

Foreign language # 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of SMART Grants 

2007–08 

Life sciences * 71 29 

76 23 

40 

74 

22 

26 

38 

70	 30 

69 

71 

31 

10 19 

47 53 

# 

Engineering
 

Computer science
 

Physical sciences
 # 

Mathematics # 

Technology 

Multi/interdisciplinary # 

Foreign language # 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of SMART Grants 

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

# Rounds to zero for for-profit institutions. 

* Life sciences includes biological and biomedical sciences, agriculture, natural resources and conservation, and 

psychology (physiological psychology and psychobiology only).
 

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
 

AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

1 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

— 55 — 
Table 8.—	 Number of third- and fourth-year students at SMART Grant–participating institutions with Pell 

Table 8.—Grants and number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with SMART Grants, by state of 

Table 8.—student’s residence: 2006–07 and 2007–08 

State of student’s 

residence 

Number of 

third- and 

fourth-year 

students with

Pell Grants 

2007–08 

Number of	 

Pell Grant	 

recipients 

 with SMART 

Grants 

2007–08 

Percent of 

all bachelor's 

Percent of third- and fourth-year Pell degrees awarded 

Grant recipients with SMART Grants in SMART Granteligible fields 

2006–07 2007–08 Change in 2006–07

 Total	 

Utah 

Illinois 

Washington 

Virginia 

Colorado 

Maine 

Oregon 

Montana 

South Dakota 

Pennsylvania 

Iowa 

Minnesota 

Indiana 

West Virginia 

California 

North Carolina 

Massachusetts 

Alabama 

Kansas 

Hawaii 

New Jersey 

Florida 

Oklahoma 

Michigan 

North Dakota 

Nevada 

Wyoming 

South Carolina 

New Hampshire 

Vermont 

Georgia 

Mississippi 

Maryland 

Arkansas 

Connecticut 

Kentucky 

Tennessee 

Wisconsin 

Ohio 

1,288,910 

23,437 

11,760 

18,522 

2,906 

20,021 

19,807 

15,317 

5,227 

5,651 

47,790 

29,197 

19,268 

51,895 

20,574 

132,834 

3,823 

5,441 

1,619 

14,283 

4,008 

3,309 

54,546 

18,951 

43,063 

90,998 

4,192 

1,416 

16,061 

8,158 

23,331 

37,735 

27,400 

13,849 

51,660 

7,808 

18,919 

24,195 

10,605 

44,644 

65,384 

3,096 

1,131 

1,501 

223 

1,485 

1,469 

1,130 

381 

395 

2,945 

1,797 

1,133 

2,940 

1,155 

7,428 

212 

299 

87 

763 

211 

173 

2,811 

970 

2,134 

4,506 

207 

66 

723 

362 

1,028 

1,655 

1,192 

597 

2,196 

326 

782 

1,000 

437 

1,737 

5.2 

14.1 

5.3 

8.4 

4.5 

6.7 

4.1 

7.4 

7.0 

6.1 

6.0 

4.3 

6.0 

4.7 

4.8 

5.4 

4.1 

7.1 

4.4 

4.9 

4.6 

3.9 

5.0 

4.9 

4.9 

7.1 

5.0 

5.3 

4.4 

7.3 

5.3 

4.5 

3.0 

4.4 

3.5 

4.8 

4.4 

4.3 

5.8 

4.3 

5.1 

13.2 

9.6 

8.1 

7.7 

7.4 

7.4 

7.4 

7.3 

7.0 

6.2 

6.2 

5.9 

5.7 

5.6 

5.6 

5.5 

5.5 

5.4 

5.3 

5.3 

5.2 

5.2 

5.1 

5.0 

5.0 

4.9 

4.7 

4.5 

4.4 

4.4 

4.4 

4.4 

4.3 

4.3 

4.2 

4.1 

4.1 

4.1 

3.9 

-0.1 

-0.9 

4.3 

-0.3 

3.2 

0.7 

3.3 

0.0 

0.3 

0.9 

0.1 

1.8 

-0.1 

0.9 

0.8 

0.2 

1.5 

-1.6 

1.0 

0.5 

0.7 

1.4 

0.2 

0.2 

0.0 

-2.2 

-0.1 

-0.7 

0.1 

-2.9 

-0.9 

-0.1 

1.3 

0.0 

0.8 

-0.6 

-0.3 

-0.2 

-1.7 

-0.4 

15.8 

17.0 * 

16.1 * 

16.2 * 

16.1 * 

20.9 * 

16.6 * 

16.9 * 

20.0 * 

21.1 * 

17.2 * 

14.6 

15.6 

16.2 * 

13.8 

17.4 * 

16.8 * 

16.1 * 

15.9 * 

14.6 

13.5 

15.9 * 

12.9 

14.7 

17.4 * 

15.7 

12.6 

23.0 * 

15.1 

13.7 

13.5 

17.1 * 

15.1 

20.8 * 

13.4 

11.8 

12.5 

12.9 

16.4 * 

14.1 

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

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

— 56 — 
—

Table 8.—

Table 8.—

Table 8.	 Number of third- and fourth-year students at SMART Grant–participating institutions with Pell 

Grants and number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with SMART Grants, by state of 

student’s residence: 2006–07 and 2007–08—Continued 

Number of Number of Percent of 

third- and Pell Grant all bachelor's 

fourth-year recipients Percent of third- and fourth-year Pell degrees awarded 

students with with SMART Grant recipients with SMART Grants in SMART GrantState of student’s Pell Grants Grants eligible fields 

residence 2007–08 2007–08 2006–07 2007–08 Change in 2006–07 

New Mexico 22,775 884 4.6 3.9 -0.8 16.6 * 

New York 10,263 395 4.7 3.8 -0.8 14.1 

Nebraska 34,671 1,303 4.4 3.8 -0.7 13.2 

Louisiana 21,499 781 4.2 3.6 -0.6 16.8 * 

Texas 94,244 3,335 3.6 3.5 -0.1 15.1 

Idaho 23,873 830 9.2 3.5 -5.7 15.2 

Alaska 23,141 798 3.7 3.4 -0.2 20.0 * 

Rhode Island 5,053 164 3.6 3.2 -0.4 13.5 

District of Columbia 2,000 64 1.9 3.2 1.3 16.4 * 

Missouri 17,623 540 4.5 3.1 -1.4 14.4 

Arizona 14,178 424 5.3 3.0 -2.3 16.6 * 

Delaware 7,239 149 2.9 2.1 -0.8 12.2 

Puerto Rico 57,920 3,027 5.7 5.2 -0.5 

All othersa 211 7 0.6 4.7 4.1 

* Higher than average.
 a

 The U.S. Virgin Islands was the only outlying jurisdiction participating in 2007–08.
 

NOTE: This table is based on unduplicated records. Class level is institution-reported for SMART Grants but studentreported for Pell Grants. Students with reported class levels greater than 5 at four-year institutions were excluded.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0708 

(Nov. 25, 2008).
 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

Student Awareness of the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs 

The student interview administered as part of the 2007–08 National Postsecondary Student Aid 

Study (NPSAS:08) included questions designed to gain an understanding of how aware lowincome students were of the ACG and National SMART Grant programs.24 The student sample 

for NPSAS:08 was designed to ensure that it would include sufficient numbers of students 

potentially eligible for these programs to permit meaningful analyses of these groups.25 

Few potentially eligible students had heard of the ACG program. 

First- and second-year students who were U.S. citizens, were in a degree program, and seemed 

likely to be eligible for a Pell Grant based on their income were asked if they had heard of the 

ACG program. If they had heard of it, they were asked additional questions about how they had 

24 See Appendix C for more information on NPSAS.
 25 All comparisons of sample survey data cited in this report are statistically significant at the .05 level. 

— 57 — 
 

 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

heard of it and if they knew about the various requirements. Among those asked, only 7 percent 

had heard of the ACG program (Table 9). After the survey was administered, a match with the 

recipient file indicated that among students who were awarded an ACG, more than half (56 

percent) had responded in the interview that they had not heard of the program.26 Whether they 

were truly unaware of the type of grant they had received or simply did not immediately 

recognize the name when asked later in the academic year is unknown. 

Among students asked about awareness (i.e., those potentially eligible for an ACG), there was 

some variation by student characteristics. For example, blacks and Hispanics were somewhat 

more likely than whites to have heard of the program (9 and 8 percent vs. 6 percent). 

Considering type of institution, potentially eligible students at public four-year institutions were 

the most aware of ACGs (12 percent), and students in for-profit two-year institutions were the 

least aware (3 percent). 

Students who had heard of the ACG were asked the source of their information and could 

mention more than one source. High school counselors were mentioned least often (by 23 

percent). College financial aid counselors and letters addressed to the recipient were more likely 

sources (35 percent in each case), but students most frequently cited hearing about the ACG 

some “other way” (41 percent). 

Students who had heard of the ACG tended to be aware of the requirements. 

Students who had heard of the ACG were asked about their awareness of three requirements: 

enrolling full-time, completing a rigorous high school program of study, and earning a 

cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher in their first year of college (to qualify for a grant in their 

second year). Eighty-five percent had heard of the full-time enrollment requirement, and 81 

percent were aware of the rigorous high school program requirement (Table 10). Fewer (70 

percent) knew about the cumulative GPA requirement. This was true no matter which source 

they cited for their information. 

Awareness of the National SMART Grant program was low as well. 

Of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-year undergraduates who were U.S. citizens and likely to be 

eligible for Pell Grants, only 5 percent had heard of the National SMART Grant program (Table 

9). Of those who were asked the question and who later turned out to have received a National 

SMART Grant, 29 percent reported that they had not heard of the program. 

26 Previous experience in designing financial aid-related questions for NPSAS has shown that students are often 

unclear about the specific types of grants or loans they have received, which seems to be the case here. 

— 58 — 
Table 9.—	 Percentage of potentially eligible students who had heard of ACGs, by source, and percentage 

Table 9.—who had heard of SMART Grants, by student characteristics and type of institution: 2007–08 

Student characteristics 

and type of institution 

Percent who 

had heard 

of ACGs 

Of those who had heard of ACGs Percent who 

had heard 

of SMART 

Grants

High 

school 

counselor 

College 

financial aid Letter 

counselor received 

Other 

way 

 Total 

Race/ethnicity 

Black 

White 

Hispanic 

Other 

Gender 

Male 

Female 

Dependency status 

Dependent 

Independent 

Parent’s education 

High school or less 

More than high school 

Type of institution 

Public two-year 

Public four-year 

Private nonprofit 

For-profit two-year 

For-profit four-year 

SMART Grant-eligible major 

Eligible major 

Non-eligible major 

7.1 

8.7 

6.2 

8.4 

8.0 

6.8 

7.3 

9.4 

4.5 

8.2 

6.5 

5.6 

11.7 

8.8 

2.8 

4.9 

† 

† 

22.8 

21.2 

20.3 

27.9 

28.0 

28.8 

19.1 

26.9 

13.0 

22.8 

22.4 

25.2 

23.8 

18.0 

14.5 

3.7 

† 

† 

34.6 

42.3 

30.6 

36.5 

36.3 

37.1 

33.1 

34.3 

35.3 

36.7 

33.7 

35.1 

30.1 

38.0 

48.2 

55.8 

† 

† 

35.1 

39.9 

32.4 

34.1 

40.4 

34.1 

35.8 

41.0 

21.3 

34.1 

36.2 

29.9 

40.7 

46.0 

22.8 

14.5 

† 

† 

41.1 

40.3 

42.9 

36.5 

42.3 

41.6 

40.9 

36.1 

53.0 

41.0 

41.6 

41.9 

39.8 

37.6 

30.0 

63.8 

† 

† 

4.5 

4.6 

4.5 

4.2 

4.8 

4.8 

4.3 

4.9 

4.1 

4.1 

4.8 

† 

5.6 

6.0 

† 

3.6 

8.6 

3.8 

† Not applicable.
 

NOTE: Students could report more than one source.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:08).
 

 

CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

— 59 — 
Table 10. —Among potentially eligible students who had heard of ACGs and SMART Grants, percentage who were aware of ea

Table 10.—student characteristics, type of institution, and source of information: 2007–08 

ACG SMART G

Majoring in scienc

technolog

Student characteristics, Rigorous Cumulative engineerin

type of institution, and Full-time high school GPA of 3.0 Full-time math, or critic

source of information enrollment program or higher enrollment languag

 Total 84.6 81.1 70.3 80.3 73

Race/ethnicity 

Black 87.5 80.8 62.9 80.2 74

White 84.2 82.6 73.4 80.7 73

Hispanic 82.2 77.2 69.7 82.4 75

Other 85.0 81.7 69.9 76.3 71

Gender 

Male 85.2 79.9 68.2 80.8 74

Female 84.2 81.9 71.5 79.9 73

Dependency status 

Dependent 86.7 83.1 68.3 83.6 74

Independent 79.5 76.5 75.0 76.2 72

Parent’s education 

High school or less 83.1 81.4 68.7 79.4 72

More than high school 86.2 81.3 71.5 80.9 74

Type of institution 

Public two-year 80.4 79.2 70.2 † 

Public four-year 89.3 84.9 68.3 85.9 78Private nonprofit 89.0 83.2 69.3 83.0 74

For-profit two-year 86.0 76.4 75.3 † 

For-profit four-year 74.2 63.2 91.3 67.7 56

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

— 60 — 
Table 10. —Among potentially eligible students who had heard of ACGs and SMART Grants, percentage who were aware of ea

Table 10.—student characteristics, type of institution, and source of information: 2007–08—Continued 

ACG SMART G

Majoring in scienc

technolog

Student characteristics, Rigorous Cumulative engineerin

type of institution, and Full-time high school GPA of 3.0 Full-time math, or critic

source of information enrollment program or higher enrollment languagSource of information on ACG 

High school counselor 88.5 86.4 78.6 † 

College financial aid counselor 87.9 83.6 75.7 † Letter received 90.5 87.6 73.7 † Other 84.7 81.6 69.6 † 

SMART Grant-eligible major 

Eligible major † † † 86.3 85

Non-eligible major † † † 78.2 69

† Not applicable.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS

— 61 — 
CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

Like their ACG counterparts, students who had heard of the National SMART Grant program 

tended to be aware of its requirements. 

Students who were aware of the National SMART Grants were asked if they knew about each of 

the three requirements: enrolling full-time, majoring in an eligible field, and earning a 

cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher. The full-time enrollment requirement was the best known (by 

80 percent of the students who were aware of the grant) (Table 10). The other two requirements 

were known by 74 and 75 percent of these students, respectively. Understandably, those with 

National SMART Grant–eligible majors were more aware than those without such majors, 

especially about the major requirement. 

Change in STEM Majors 

A major goal of the National SMART Grant is to increase the number of low-income students 

who pursue degrees in the technical fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

(STEM) to help the United States be competitive in the global economy. Although it is too early 

to know if the program is having this effect, an examination of current trends using the 2003–04 

and 2007–08 National Postsecondary Student Aid Studies provides useful background 

information for later study of this question. 

The proportion of undergraduates who pursued STEM majors remained stable. 

In both 2003–04 and 2007–08, 14 percent of undergraduates were STEM majors (Appendix 

Table F-1). The total number of undergraduates increased between the two years, and there was 

an equivalent increase in the number of STEM majors. As a result, the proportion of STEM 

majors stayed about the same. The proportion of undergraduates majoring in STEM fields at 

each type of institution remained generally stable as well, except at public four-year institutions 

where it increased from 18 to 20 percent. 

While men greatly outnumbered women as STEM majors in both years, the proportion of 

women who were STEM majors increased slightly, from 7.5 percent to 8 percent. During this 

period, the proportion of blacks who were STEM majors decreased slightly, from 13 to 12 

percent. Within the highest income group of dependent students (families with an income of 

$100,000 or more), the proportion with STEM majors increased from 16 to 18 percent. 

The proportion of Pell Grant recipients who chose STEM majors also remained stable. 

There was little change in the proportion of Pell Grant recipients who chose a STEM major: 14 

percent in 2003–04 and 13 percent in 2007–08 (Appendix Table F-2). At for-profit institutions, 

the number of all Pell Grant recipients increased more than the number of Pell Grant recipients 

with STEM majors, resulting in a drop in the proportion who were STEM majors from 21 to 14 

— 62 — 
CHAPTER 3. ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

AND AWARENESS 

percent. The number of black Pell Grant recipients increased, but the percentage who chose a 

STEM major dropped from 13 to 10 percent. 

The number of younger undergraduates going straight to college and receiving Pell Grants 

who took rigorous courses increased. 

The number of undergraduates who had recently graduated from high school and were beginning 

postsecondary education students rose by 27 percent between 2003–04 and 2007–08 (Appendix 

Table F-3). The proportion who received Pell Grants, however, decreased slightly, from 28 to 26 

percent. 

Among these beginning postsecondary students, for-profit institutions had the largest proportion 

of Pell Grant recipients in both years, but the proportion dropped from 71 to 61 percent during 

the period. The proportion of Asians who received Pell Grants decreased from 33 to 24 percent. 

The number of beginning college students just out of high school who had completed a rigorous 

high school program (i.e., met the ACG requirements) increased by 28 percent between 2003–04 

and 2007–08. During this period, the number who had taken mathematics courses higher than 

algebra II increased by 45 percent; the number who had taken two or more years of mathematics 

increased by 30 percent; and the number who had taken two or more years of social studies, 

English, or foreign language all increased at least 20 percent. The number with a high school 

GPA of 3.00 or higher increased by 31 percent, and the number who had earned college-level 

credits while in high school increased 40 percent. 

— 63 — 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

CHAPTER 4 

ACG, National SMART, and Pell Grant Renewals 

This chapter describes the status in 2007–08 of students who received ACGs, National SMART 

Grants, and Pell Grants in 2006–07. The data were derived by merging records from the recipient 

files for the two years. If the 2006–07 recipients enrolled in 2007–08 and received any of the 

three types of grants, they appeared in the 2007–08 file. If they did not have a record in the 

2007–08 data file, either they were not enrolled in 2007–08 or they were enrolled but had lost 

Pell Grant eligibility. It is impossible to tell which condition applied. Highlights of the findings 

of this analysis are shown in figures in the text, and detailed results are located in Appendix 

Tables D-14 through D-18. 

ACG Program Renewals 

Just over one-quarter of first-year ACGs were renewed for a second year. 

To receive another ACG as a second-year student, a first-year ACG recipient must continue to 

have an Expected Family Contribution (EFC) low enough to qualify for a Pell Grant, continue to 

be enrolled full-time, and have a 3.0 GPA at the end of the first year. Only 27 percent of the firstyear students who had received an ACG in 2006–07 met all the requirements for another one in 

their second year (Figure 23). 

Almost half of first-year ACG recipients received another Pell Grant the following year but not 

another ACG. 

Almost one-half (48 percent) of the first-year students who had received an ACG in 2006–07 

met the requirements for a Pell Grant renewal in the second year but could not meet the stricter 

ACG renewal requirements (Figure 23). This suggests that a 3.0 GPA requirement may be an 

unrealistic expectation for low-income students during their freshman year. 

Renewal of a Pell Grant requires only a low EFC and minimal academic progress. Pell Grant 

eligibility does not require full-time attendance, and each college can set its own academic 

progress criteria, which are usually based on course completion (minimum credits earned per 

term) rather than a minimum GPA. It is possible that some second-year Pell Grant students who 

lose their ACG funds may find it necessary to drop to part-time attendance to reduce their tuition 

expenses, but there are no data to prove that this is the case. 

— 65 —
 
—

Figure 23.—

Figure 23.	 Percentage distribution of 2006–07 first-year ACG recipients by ACG and Pell Grant receipt 

status in 2007–08 

Percent 

Grant renewal status in 2007–08 

27 

48 

26 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

No Pell Grant or not enrolled 

Pell Grant, no ACG 

ACG and Pell Grant 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Pell Grant, no ACG includes 1 percent with SMART Grants.
 

Based on Appendix Table D-14.
 

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

AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

CHAPTER 4. ACG, NATIONAL SMART, AND PELL GRANT RENEWALS 

At four-year institutions, renewal rates of first-year ACGs were lowest in the public sector. 

At four-year institutions, about one-fourth (25 percent) of the first-year ACGs were renewed at 

public institutions, compared with 33 percent at private nonprofit institutions and 32 percent at 

for-profit institutions (Figure 24). Overall, the lowest renewal rates of first-year ACGs were at 

public two-year institutions (20 percent) (Appendix Table D-14). The number of first-year ACGs 

that were awarded was quite small at private nonprofit and for-profit two-year institutions, but 

their renewal rates were relatively high. 

— 66 — 
—

Figure 24.—

Figure 24.	 Percentage distribution of 2006–07 first-year ACG recipients by ACG and Pell Grant receipt 

status in 2007–08, by type of institution 

Percent 

100 

80 

No Pell Grant 

45 

or not enrolled 

60 

42 Pell Grant, 

no ACG 

51 

25 23 27 30 

40 

25 33 32 

20 25 

38 

ACG and Pell 

20 

47 

33	 

Grant 

41 

21 

46 

0 

Public Private For- Public Private Fornonprofit profit nonprofit profit
 

Four-year	 Two-year 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Pell Grant, no ACG includes 1 percent with SMART Grants in
 

four-year institutions. Based on Appendix Table D-14.
 

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

AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

 

 

CHAPTER 4. ACG, NATIONAL SMART, AND PELL GRANT RENEWALS 

National SMART Grant Program Renewals 

More than one-half of the third-year students who received a National SMART Grant in 

2006–07 received another one the following year. 

To receive another National SMART Grant in their fourth year, third-year National SMART 

Grant recipients had to continue to have an EFC low enough to qualify for a Pell Grant, continue 

to be enrolled full-time, continue to be enrolled in an eligible major and take at least one course 

meeting the requirements for that major, and maintain a cumulative 3.0 GPA. More than one-half 

(57 percent) of the third-year students who received a National SMART Grant in 2006–07 met 

the requirements to renew it as fourth-year students (Figure 25). 

The National SMART Grant renewal rates (57 percent) were substantially higher than the ACG 

renewal rates (27 percent). In part, this likely reflects the fact that freshmen have a more difficult 

time meeting academic expectations in the first year of college than juniors, who have had time 

to adapt to the college experience. 

— 67 — 
—

Figure 25.—

Figure 25.	 Percentage distribution of 2006–07 third-year SMART Grant recipients by SMART Grant and 

Pell Grant receipt status in 2007–08 

Percent 

Grant renewal status in 2007–08 

57 

22 

22 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

No Pell Grant or not enrolled 

Pell Grant, no SMART Grant 

SMART and Pell Grant 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Based on Appendix Table D-15.
 

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

AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

 

CHAPTER 4. ACG, NATIONAL SMART, AND PELL GRANT RENEWALS 

About one-fifth of third-year National SMART Grant recipients received another Pell Grant 

the following year but not another National SMART Grant. 

Twenty-two percent of the third-year National SMART Grant students did not qualify for a 

renewal of their grant in their fourth year but did receive a Pell Grant (Figure 25). This means 

that they did not meet the GPA requirement, were not enrolled full-time, or were not taking at 

least one course in their major. 

Renewal rates for third-year National SMART Grant recipients were highest at private 

nonprofit institutions. 

Third-year students at private nonprofit institutions had National SMART Grant renewal rates of 

60 percent, followed by 57 percent of those at public institutions (Figure 26). At for-profit 

institutions, where the majority of National SMART Grant students are computer science majors, 

the renewal rate was lower (43 percent) (Appendix Table D-15). 

— 68 — 
—

Figure 26.—

Figure 26.	 Percentage distribution of 2006–07 third-year SMART Grant recipients by SMART Grant and 

Pell Grant receipt status in 2007–08, by type of institution 

Percent 

Public Private nonprofit For-profit 

Grant renewal status in 2007–08 

57 60 

43 

23 18 

21 

20 23 

35 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

No Pell Grant or not enrolled 

Pell Grant, no SMART Grant 

SMART and Pell Grant 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Based on Appendix Table D-15.
 

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

AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

 

CHAPTER 4. ACG, NATIONAL SMART, AND PELL GRANT RENEWALS 

Renewal rates were highest for National SMART Grant recipients studying critical foreign 

languages. 

Renewal rates for third-year National SMART Grant recipients by field of study ranged from a 

low of 48 percent in computer science to a high of 66 percent in critical foreign languages. 

Renewal rates for National SMART Grant students in the life sciences, engineering, physical 

sciences, and mathematics were all between 58 and 59 percent (Figure 27). Appendix Table 

D-16 shows detailed data on National SMART Grant renewals by field of study. 

— 69 — 
—

Figure 27.—

Figure 27.	 Percentage of 2006–07 third-year SMART Grant recipients who received another SMART 

Grant in 2007–08, by field of study 

Critical foreign language 

Engineering 

Life sciences 

Physical sciences 

Mathematics 

Technology 

Multidisciplinary studies 

Computer science 48 

51 

52 

58 

59 

59 

59 

66 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent with SMART Grant renewal 

NOTE: Based on Appendix Table D-16.
 

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

AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

 

CHAPTER 4. ACG, NATIONAL SMART, AND PELL GRANT RENEWALS 

Pell Grant Renewals 

A key question is whether low-income students who receive ACGs or National SMART Grants 

are more likely than their peers without these grants to persist in college and ultimately graduate. 

Without longitudinal enrollment data, which are not available for the students included in this 

study, this question cannot be answered. However, if a student who received a Pell Grant in 

2006–07 also received one in 2007–08, it means that the student persisted. If the student did not 

receive a Pell Grant in the second year, it means that the student either did not enroll or enrolled 

but no longer qualified for a Pell Grant because of a higher family income or because the student 

dropped below half-time enrollment. Based on their Pell Grant renewal rates, students who 

received an ACG or National SMART Grant persisted at higher rates than their peers who 

received a Pell Grant only. 

The higher persistence rates for students with ACGs and National SMART Grants cannot be 

attributed solely to these grant programs. Students who receive these grants are among the most 

academically qualified students receiving Pell Grants and therefore would be expected to persist 

at higher rates. However, the additional financial support (perhaps reducing the need to work 

during the school term) and other student attributes may have been contributing factors. 

— 70 — 
 

 

CHAPTER 4. ACG, NATIONAL SMART, AND PELL GRANT RENEWALS 

Nevertheless, the substantial differences are worth noting. As experience with these programs 

accumulates, it will be possible to address these key questions with additional data and analyses. 

ACG and National SMART Grant recipients had higher Pell Grant renewal rates than 

students with a Pell Grant only. 

The Pell Grant renewal rates of first- and second-year students who had also qualified for an 

ACG in 2006–07 were about 18 percentage points higher than for their counterparts who had 

received a Pell Grant only in 2006–07 (Figure 28). Among first-year Pell Grant recipients in 

2006–07, just over one-half (56 percent) of those who received a Pell Grant only received 

another Pell Grant the next year (Appendix Table D-17).27 In comparison, three-fourths (75 

percent) of those who had received an ACG as first-year students received another Pell Grant the 

next year.28 

—

Figure 28.—

Figure 28.	 Percentage of Pell Grant–only and ACG or SMART Grant recipients who received another
 

Pell Grant in 2007–08, by class level in 2006–07 

Percent 

First-year	 Second-year Third-year Fourth-year 

Class level in 2006–07 

Pell Grant only ACG or SMART Grant 

56 

62 

69 

31 

75 

79 78 

38 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 ACGs SMART Grants 

NOTE: Pell Grant renewals include students also receiving ACGs or SMART Grants. Based on Appendix Tables D-16 and 

D-17.
 

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

AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 

27 This includes about 1 percent who received an ACG or National SMART Grant in 2007–08 but had not received 

one in 2006–07.
 28 This includes the 27 percent who received an ACG and 1 percent who received National SMART Grant in
 

addition to their Pell Grant. 

— 71 — 
 

CHAPTER 4. ACG, NATIONAL SMART, AND PELL GRANT RENEWALS 

The Pell Grant renewal rates for 2006–07 first-year students at public and private nonprofit 

institutions were 10–13 percentage points higher among ACG recipients than among those who 

had received a Pell Grant only (Appendix Table D-17). At for-profit institutions, they were 

23–30 percent higher. 

The Pell Grant renewal rates for third-year students who had also qualified for a National 

SMART Grant in 2006–07 were nearly 10 percentage points higher than for their counterparts 

who had received a Pell Grant only that year (Figure 28). Among third-year Pell Grant recipients 

in 2006–07, 69 percent of those who had received Pell Grants only received another Pell Grant 

the next year. In comparison, 78 percent of their counterparts who had also qualified for a 

National SMART Grant received another Pell Grant the next year (including the 57 percent who 

met the requirements to renew their National SMART Grant [Figure 26]). Appendix Tables D-17 

and D-18 show details by class level, program, and type of institution. 

Fourth-year Pell Grant renewal rates are not comparable to those of third-year students. The Pell 

Grant renewal rates of fourth-year students indicate that about one-third of the Pell and National 

SMART Grant seniors required more than four years to complete their degree programs (Figure 

28). 

Approximately one-half of the third- and fourth-year National SMART and Pell Grant-only 

recipients were college seniors who received grants in their fourth year (Appendix Tables D-17 

and D-18). In general, the fourth-year National SMART Grant students could not receive an 

additional National SMART Grant, because the regulations in effect at the time limited these 

grants to two academic years and two class levels. Students who were in programs that usually 

take five years (e.g., engineering) and those who needed to take additional courses to meet all 

requirements for graduation could be eligible for an additional Pell Grant in order to complete 

their degrees, but they could not get an additional National SMART Grant. 

The Pell Grant renewal rates of fourth-year students reflect the amount of time needed to 

complete their degree programs. 

The Pell Grant renewal rates of fourth-year students indicate that about 30 percent of those with 

Pell Grants only and nearly 40 percent of those with National SMART Grants in 2006–07 

required more than four years to complete their degree programs. At public and for-profit 

institutions, Pell Grant renewal rates among fourth-year National SMART Grant recipients were 

about 10 percentage points higher than among Pell Grant-only recipients (42 vs. 33 percent at 

public institutions and 37 vs. 27 percent at for-profit institutions) (Appendix Table D-17). That 

is, National SMART Grant students were taking longer to finish their degrees at public and forprofit institutions than Pell Grant–only students. At private nonprofit institutions, the renewal 

rates for the two groups were about the same (28 and 27 percent, respectively). 

— 72 — 
CHAPTER 4. ACG, NATIONAL SMART, AND PELL GRANT RENEWALS 

Pell Grant renewal rates for fourth-year National SMART Grant recipients in 2006–07 by field 

of study ranged from a low of 30 percent in critical foreign languages to a high of 43 percent in 

engineering (Figure 29). As noted above, the Pell Grant renewal rates of fourth-year National 

SMART Grant students are an indicator of the time it takes them to complete their degrees. 

National SMART Grant students majoring in engineering were the most likely to receive another 

Pell Grant in the fifth year because their programs usually take longer to finish. In the other 

science and technical fields, the typical Pell Grant renewal rate for fourth-year students was 

between 35 and 40 percent (Appendix Table D-16). Information on college majors is only 

available for students with National SMART Grants. 

— 73 — 

—

Figure 29.—

Figure 29.	 Percentage of 2006–07 fourth-year SMART Grant recipients who received a Pell Grant in 

2007–08, by field of study
 

Engineering 

Technology 

Physical sciences 

Mathematics 

Computer science 

Multidisciplinary studies 

Life sciences 

Critical foreign language 30 

35 

36 

38 

39 

40 

40 

43 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

Percent of recipients with Pell Grant renewals 

NOTE: Based on Appendix Table D-16.
 

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

AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007) and AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).
 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

References
 

Achieve. 2010. Closing the Expectations Gap: Fifth Annual 50-State Progress Report on the 

Alignment of High School Policies with the Demands of College and Careers. 

Washington, D.C.: Author. http://www.achieve.org/ClosingtheExpectationsGap2010 

(accessed May 6, 2010). 

The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (ACSFA). July, 2008. Early and 

Often: Designing a Comprehensive System of Financial Aid Information. Washington, 

D.C.: Author. http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/acsfa/earlyoftenreport.pdf 

(accessed Aug. 17, 2009). 

American Association of State Colleges and Universities. 2010. Top 10 Higher Education State 

Policy Issues for 2010. 

http://www.congressweb.com/aascu/docfiles/AASCU_Top_Ten_Policy_Issues_2010.pdf 

(accessed May 6, 2010). 

Amos, Lauren, Amy Windham, Iliana Brodziak de los Reyes, Wehmah Jones, and Virginia 

Baran. 2010. Delivering on the Promise: An Impact Evaluation of the Gates Millenium 

Scholars Program. Washington, D.C.:American Institutes for Research. 

http://www.air.org/files/GMS_Impact_Evaluation_Final_Report_FINAL.pdf 

Bettinger, Eric P., Bridget Terry Long, Philip Oreopoulos, and Lisa Sanbonmatsu. 2009. The 

Role of Simplification and Information in College Decisions: Results from the H&R 

Block FAFSA Experiment. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working 

Paper 15361. http://www.nber.org/papers/w15361 (accessed May 6, 2010). 

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. 2010. Gates Millennium Scholars 2009 Annual Report. 

http://www.gmsp.org/publicweb/News.aspx?id=149 (accessed May 6, 2010). 

Blumenstyk, Goldie. June 29, 2009. As Fiscal Year Ends, Big Questions Loom for Colleges’ 

Financial Futures. The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/Atthe-Fiscal-Years-End-Q/46960/ (accessed Aug. 17, 2009). 

Bottoms, Gene, and John Uhn. 2008, December. Transition to College and Careers from a High 

Schools That Work High School: A Follow-Up Study of 2006 High School Graduates. 

Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board. 

http://www.sreb.org/publications/2008/08V28_ResearchBrief_2006_followup.pdf 

(accessed Aug. 17, 2009). 

The Brookings Institution. May 26, 2009. The Future of Student Financial Aid. Transcript. 

Washington, D.C.: Author. 

http://www3.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2009/0526_student_aid/20090526_stud 

ent_aid.pdf (accessed Aug. 17, 2009). 

— 75 —
 
REFERENCES 

The College Board. 2008. Fulfilling the Commitment: Recommendations for Reforming Federal 

Student Aid. The Report from the Rethinking Student Aid Study Group. 

http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/rethinking-stu-aid-fulfillingcommitment-recommendations.pdf (accessed Oct. 1, 2008). 

Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American 

Science and Technology, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of 

Medicine of the National Academies. 2007. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: 

Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, D.C.: 

The National Academies Press. http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463 

(accessed Aug. 17, 2009). 

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). 2010. [website]. http://www.corestandards.org 

(accessed May 6, 2010). 

Cornwell, Christopher, David B. Mustard, and Deepa J. Sridhar. 2006. The Enrollment Effects of 

Merit-Based Financial Aid: Evidence from Georgia’s HOPE Scholarship. Journal of 

Labor Economics 24 (4): 761–786. http://www.terry.uga.edu/hope/hope.enrollments.pdf 

(accessed Aug. 17, 2009). 

Council on Competitiveness. 2005. Innovate America. National Innovation Initiative Summit and 

Report. 

http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/NII_Innovate_America.pdf 

(accessed Aug. 17, 2009). 

Deming, David, and Susan Dynarski. 2009. Into College, Out of Poverty? Policies to Increase 

the Postsecondary Attainment of the Poor. National Bureau of Economic Research 

(NBER) Working Paper 15387. http://www.nber.org/papers/w15387.pdf (accessed May 

6, 2010). 

Dynarski, Susan. 2000, June. Hope for Whom? Financial Aid for the Middle Class and Its 

Impact on College Attendance. NBER Working Paper No. 7756, and published in 

National Tax Journal 53 (3) (September 2004): 629–661. 

http://papers.nber.org/papers/w7756 (accessed August 17, 2009). 

———. 2002, December. The New Merit Aid. NBER Working Paper No. 9400, and published in 

College Choices: The Economics of Where to Go, When to Go, and How to Pay for It, 

edited by C. Hoxby (2004). http://papers.nber.org/papers/w9400 (accessed Aug. 17, 

2009). 

Dynarski, Susan, and Judith E. Scott-Clayton. 2006. The Cost of Complexity in Federal Student 

Aid: Lessons From Optimal Tax Theory and Behavioral Economics. National Tax 

Journal 59: 319–356. 

———. 2008. Complexity and Targeting in Federal Student Aid: A Quantitative Analysis. 

NBER Working Paper 13801. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic 

Research, Inc. http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/13801.html (accessed Sept. 21, 2009). 

— 76 — 
 

 

REFERENCES 

Field, Kelly. 2009, May 20. Education Secretary to States: I’m Watching You. The Chronicle of 

Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/Education-Secretary-to-Stat/47616/ 

(accessed Aug. 17, 2009). 

Harkreader, Steve, John Hughes, Melanie Hicks Tozzi, and Gary Vanlandingham. 2008. Impact 

of Florida’s Bright Futures Scholarship Program on High School Performance and 

College Enrollment. NASFAA Journal of Student Financial Aid 38 (1): 5–16. 

http://www.nasfaa.org/Annualpubs/Journal/Vol38N1/HarkreaderHughesTozziVanlandin 

gham.PDF (accessed Aug. 17, 2009). 

Heller, Donald E. 2002. State Merit Scholarship Programs: An Introduction. 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. 

———. 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. 

———. 2008, August. Institutional and State Merit Aid: Implications for Students. Paper read at 

University of Southern California, Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice. 

Inaugural Conference, at Los Angeles. 

http://www.usc.edu/programs/cerpp/docs/HellerPaper.pdf (accessed Aug. 17, 2009). 

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.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Institute for Higher Education Policy. 2006. Expanding Access and Opportunity: The Impact of 

the Gates Millennium Scholars Program. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/publications/a-f/ExpandingAccessOpp.pdf (accessed 

Aug. 17, 2009). 

Kantrowitz, Mark. 2010. Overview of Student Aid Changes in the Recent Reconciliation 

Legislation, Marketplace of Ideas, Council on Law in Higher Education. 

http://www.finaid.org/educators/20100330hcera.phtml (accessed May 6, 2010). 

McSwain, Courtney, Alisa F. Cunningham, Wendy Erisman, and Jamie P. Merisotis. 2008. 

Window of Opportunity: Targeting Federal Grant Aid to Students with the Lowest 

Incomes. Washington, D.C.: The Institute for Higher Education Policy. 

http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/publications/s-z/Window_of_Opportunity.pdf (accessed 

March 3, 2008). 

— 77 — 
 

REFERENCES 

National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs (NASSGAP). n.d. 39th Annual 

Survey Report on State-Sponsored Student Financial Aid: 2007–08 Academic Year. 

http://www.nassgap.org/viewrepository.aspx?categoryID=317# (accessed Aug. 17, 

2009). 

National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA). 2009. National 

Conversation Initiative—Access and Aid for Student Success in Postsecondary 

Education: Preliminary Recommendations. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

http://www.nasfaa.org/PDFs/2009/NCIPreliminaryRecs.pdf (accessed April 22, 2009). 

Northwestern Connecticut Community College. n.d. Awarding AC Grants: A Well-Oiled 

Machine. PowerPoint presentation. 

http://www.commnet.edu/finaid/Documents/Awarding%20AC%20Grants.pdf (accessed 

Aug. 17, 2009). 

The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. 2009, May. National Studies 

Find TRIO Programs Effective at Increasing College Enrollment and Graduation. 

Washington, D.C.: Author. http://www.coenet.us/files/filesTRIO_Programs_Effective_May_2009.pdf. (accessed Aug. 17, 2009). 

Perna, Laura W., Heather T. Rowan-Kenyon, Scott L. Thomas, Angela Bell, Robert Anderson, 

and Chunyan Li. 2008. The Role of College Counseling in Shaping College Opportunity: 

Variations Across High Schools. The Review of Higher Education 31(2): 131–159 

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/review_of_higher_education/v031/31.2perna.html (accessed 

May 6, 2010). 

Planty, Michael, Willliam 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.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Sloan-Brown, Karen. 2009. An Examination of State Funding Policies for Higher Education and 

Their Effects on Postsecondary Enrollments. Unpublished dissertation. Tennessee State 

University. http://gradworks.umi.com/33/89/3389371.html (accessed May 6, 2010). 

Tierney, William G., Thomas Bailey, Jill Constantine, Neal Finkelstein, and Nicole Farmer 

Hurd. 2009. Helping Students Navigate the Path to College: What High Schools Can Do: 

A Practice Guide. NCEE 2009-4066. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 

Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practiceguides/higher_ed_pg_091509.pdf 

(accessed Sept. 21, 2009). 

U.S. Department of Education. 2009. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: 

Saving and Creating Jobs and Reforming Education. 

http://ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/implementation.html (accessed May 6, 2010). 

— 78 — 
REFERENCES 

U.S. Department of Education. 2009. Rigorous Secondary School Programs of Study, and 

Eligible Majors. In 2009-10 COD Technical Reference. 

http://ifap.ed.gov/codtechref/attachments/0910CODTechRefVol6Sec9RigCIPCodes.pdf 

(accessed Aug. 17, 2009). 

U.S. Department of Education. 2010. Federal Student Aid FAFSA. http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/ 

(accessed May 6, 2010). 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, by Adelman, 

Clifford. 1999. Answers in the Toolbox: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and 

Bachelor’s Degree Attainment. PLLI 1999–8021. Washington, D.C., Author. 

———. 2006. The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion From High School Through 

College. Washington, D.C., Author. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. 2010. Race to 

the Top Fund program website. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html 

(accessed May 6, 2010). 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Inspector General. 2008. Audit of the Department’s 

Process for Disbursing Academic Competitiveness Grants and National Science and 

Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grants. Control Number ED-OIG/A19H0011. 

Washington, D.C.: Author. 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/fy2008/a19h0011.pdf (accessed 

Aug. 15, 2008). 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy 

and Program Studies Service, by Choy, Susan P., Lutz Berkner, John Lee, and Amelia 

Topper. 2009. Academic Competitiveness and National SMART Grant Programs: FirstYear Lessons Learned. Washington, D.C., Author. 

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/acsmartyear1/index.html (accessed Jan. 15, 

2009). 

U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2009. Federal Student Aid: Recent Changes to 

Eligibility Requirements and Additional Efforts to Promote Awareness Could Increase 

Academic Competitiveness and SMART Grant Participation. GAO-09-343. Washington, 

D.C.: Author. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-343 (accessed March 25, 2009). 

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.: U.S. 

Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education. 2008. National High School Reform 

Efforts. http://wiche.edu/statescholars/files/National_HS_Reform_Efforts.pdf (accessed 

Aug. 17, 2009). 

— 79 — 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A 

National SMART Grant–Eligible Majors 

Prior to the implementation of the National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) Grant 

program, the secretary of education designated the eligible fields of study. This list was expanded for 2007–08 to
 

include additional fields of study in Agriculture, Natural Resources and Conservation, Psychology, and
 

Multidisciplinary Studies. Fields added for 2007–08 are shown below in bolded italics.
 

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. This category also includes agriculture, 

agricultural operations, and related sciences.
 

Associated NCES CIP CODES: 26.xxxx; 01.xxxx 

Natural Resources and Conservation: Instructional programs that focus on the various natural resources and
 

conservation fields and prepare individuals for related occupations. 

Associated NCES CIP CODES: 03.xxxx
 

Psychology: Instructional programs that focus on the scientific study of the behavior of individuals, 

independently or collectively, and the physical and environmental bases of mental, emotional, and neurological
 

activity. 

Associated NCES CIP CODES: 42.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
 

— 81 —
 
APPENDIX A. NATIONAL SMART GRANT–ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

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 

— 82 —
 
 

 

APPENDIX A. NATIONAL SMART GRANT–ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

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 

— 83 —
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A. NATIONAL SMART GRANT–ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

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 16.0904 Portuguese Language and Literature 

16.0301 Chinese Language and Literature 16.1101 Arabic Language and Literature 

16.0302 Japanese Language and Literature 16.1102 Hebrew Language and Literature 

16.0303 Korean Language and Literature 16.1402 Bahasa Indonesian/Bahasa Malay 

16.0402 Russian Language and Literature Languages and Literatures 

16.0701 Hindi Language and Literature 16.1404 Filipino/Tagalog Language and Literature 

16.0704 Bengali Language and Literature 16.1501 Turkish Language and Literature 

16.0705 Panjabi Language and Literature 16.1599 Turkic, Ural-Altaic, Caucasian, and Central 

16.0707 Urdu Language and Literature Asian Languages, Literatures, and 

16.0801 Iranian/Persian Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics, Other 

Linguistics 

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 

— 84 —
 
 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A. NATIONAL SMART GRANT–ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

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 

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 

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
 

01.10 Food Science and Technology (2007–08) 

01.1001 Food Science
 

01.1002 Food Technology and Processing 

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
 

— 85 —
 
 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A. NATIONAL SMART GRANT–ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

Natural Resources and Conservation (2007–08) 

03.05 Forestry
 03. NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION 

03.0502 Forest Sciences and Biology
 03.01 Natural Resources and Conservation Research 03.0509 Wood Science and Wood Products/Pulp 03.0104 Environmental Science and Paper Technology
 

03.03 Fishing and Fisheries Sciences and Management
 03.06 Wildlife and Wildlands Science and Management 03.0301 Fishing and Fisheries Science and 03.0601 Wildlife and Wildlands Science and Management Management 

Psychology (2007–08) 

42. PSYCHOLOGY 

42.11 Physiological Psychology/Psychobiology
 

42.1101 Physiological Psychology/Psychobiology
 

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 

— 86 —
 
 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A. NATIONAL SMART GRANT–ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

40.0802 Atomic/Molecular Physics 40.0809 Acoustics 

40.0804 Elementary Particle Physics 40.0810 Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 

40.0805 Plasma and High-Temperature Physics 40.0899 Physics, Other 

40.0806 Nuclear Physics 40.99 Physical Sciences, Other 40.0807 Optics/Optical Sciences 40.9999 Physical Sciences, Other 40.0808 Solid State and Low-Temperature Physics 

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 

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 

— 87 —
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A. NATIONAL SMART GRANT–ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

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 

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 

30.10 Biopsychology (2007–08)
 

30.1001 Biopsychology 

30.15 Science, Technology and Society 

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
 

30.19 Nutrition Sciences (2007–08) 

30.1901 Nutrition Sciences 

30.24 Neuroscience 

30.2401 Neuroscience 

30.25 Cognitive Science 

30.2501 Cognitive Science
 

— 88 —
 
 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B 

Recognized Rigorous High School Programs 

To be eligible for an Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG), a student must have completed a 

rigorous high school program of study after Jan. 1, 2006, if enrolled as a first-year student and 

after Jan. 1, 2005, if enrolled as a second-year student. The secretary of education 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, states may 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.29 

In every state, students potentially had at least two ways to meet the rigorous high school 

curriculum: the Department of Education course-based curriculum and passing Advanced 

Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (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 State Scholars Initiative (SSI) had a third option, 

and those in states with approved state programs had at least one additional option and 

sometimes several. 

1. Participating in the State Scholars Initiative (SSI) (offered in selected districts in 22 states 

in 2006–07 and 24 states in 2007–08). 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.30 To achieve recognition, students 

in participating states must complete all state-mandated high school graduation requirements and 

also the following course work: four years of English; three years of mathematics (including 

algebra I, algebra II, and geometry); three years of laboratory science (biology, chemistry, and 

physics); three and a half years of social studies (chosen from U.S. and world history, world 

geography, economics, and government); and two years of a language other than English. 

29 A description of the requirements in each state is available at: http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/about/ac-smart/stateprograms.html (accessed July, 2010).
 30 More information on this initiative and a current list of participating states is available at: 

http://www.wiche.edu/statescholars/ (accessed July, 2010). 

— 89 —
 
 

APPENDIX B. RECOGNIZED RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

2. Completing a curriculum similar to the State Scholars Initiative (SSI). This option 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, and Lewis 2005). 

However, students can take AP courses through independent study (or online in some states).31 

4. Completing an existing advanced, honors, or other approved program. In most cases, the 

approved programs were unique to a state. Some of the state programs were based solely on 

completing specific courses, while others had additional or different requirements.32 

Seven states were approved to use the High Schools That Work (HSTW) Award of Educational 

Achievement in 2006–07 and 2007–08. To earn this award, students must complete the 

curriculum recommended by the 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 the following: 

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, precalculus, calculus, or AP mathematics. 

31 Available at: http://www.collegeboard.com (accessed July, 2010).
 32 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.
 

— 90 —
 
 

 

APPENDIX B. RECOGNIZED RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

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 the following: 

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 

AP 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 AP level. 

Performance goals: 

The performance goals on the HSTW assessment are a score of 279 in reading, a score of 

297 in mathematics, and a score of 299 in science on a scale of 0–500. 

— 91 —
 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

APPENDIX C 

Data Sources 

ACG and National SMART Grant Data 

The Office of Student Financial Aid, U.S. Department of Education provided the data used in 

this report. The files contain student-level records of all Pell Grant recipients in 2006–07 and 

2007–08, merged with information on Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and National 

Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) Grant awards and information from 

the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). MPR Associates merged the files for the 

two years to determine renewal rates. The files contain data on all students who received a Pell 

Grant at one of the institutions eligible to participate in the ACG or National SMART Grant 

programs—4.9 million students in 2006–07 and 5.4 million students in 2007–08. 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 were 

included. 

Because data on disbursements and cancellations are added to the files on an ongoing basis, other 

published reports based on earlier or later versions of the files may show slightly different 

numbers of grants. The file used for 2006–07 was dated Sept. 21, 2007, and the file used for 

2007–08 was dated Nov. 25, 2008. By September, most financial aid data for the previous 

academic year have been finalized. Changes after that are typically minor. 

Although ACGs and National SMART Grants are awarded only to students with Pell Grants, a 

small number of ACG or National SMART Grant records could not be matched to a Pell Grant 

record in this file (about 450 each year). These records were dropped. 

Some of the student-reported fields from the FAFSA were missing. Consequently, the student 

totals on tables using these variables may differ slightly from the totals on other tables. 

Some ACG or National SMART Grant recipients transferred during the academic year and 

received these grants at two different colleges (about 2,000 in 2006–07 and about 3,000 in 

2007–08). The tables that show the number of students by type of institution or state include 

these students at both institutions and, therefore, have slightly higher totals than the tables based 

on unduplicated, unique student records. Notes on the tables indicate whether the counts are 

duplicated or unduplicated. 

— 93 —
 
 

 

APPENDIX C. DATA SOURCES 

Finally, some 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). These students are shown in 

both the ACG and the National SMART Grant totals in all tables. 

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 these 

sources on the NCES website (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/). 

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 2007–08. 

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. 

— 94 — 
 

APPENDIX D 

Supplemental Tables on ACG and National SMART 

Grant Program Participation by Type of Institution: 

2007–08 

— 95 —
 
Table D-1. —Number and percentage of eligible institutions participating in the ACG and SMART Grant programs by type of ins

Number of institutions Number of Pell Grants in 

Type of institution 

Total

number 

Number 

Number Percent participartici- partici- pating in 

 pating pating SMART

in ACG in ACG Grant 

Percent 

 participating in 

 SMART 

Grant

Pell Grants Pel

Total Pell in partici- 

Grant pating 

 colleges 

 number

 Total 

Two-year 

Total Public two-year 

Private nonprofit two-year For-profit two-year 

Four-year 

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

4,084 1,958 1,111 

183 664 

2,126 

619 

1,281 

226 

2,970 

1,129 

909 

54 

166 

1,841 

586 

1,091 

164 

72.7 

57.7 

81.8 

29.5 

25.0 

86.6 

94.7 

85.2 

72.6 

1,478 

† 

† 

† † 

1,478 

528 

854 

96 

36.2 

† 

† 

† † 

69.5 

85.3 

66.7 

42.5 

5,439,552 2,285,993 

1,853,587 

33,019 

399,387 

3,153,559 

1,757,221 

771,320 

625,018 

4,918,100 

1,917,064 

1,771,089 

13,907 

132,068 

2,751,997 

1,607,606 

677,670 

466,721 

† Not applicable.NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2007–08. Participating colleges are th

one ACG or SMART Grant. Institutions with multiple branches are counted separately when the information was reported by the campus. Many systems and for-profit institutions with multiple campuses did not provide information at the campus level.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).

— 96 — 
Table D-2. Number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with AC — Gs or SMART Grants at participating institutions: 2007–08 

Pell Grant recipients ACG recipients SMART Grant recipients 

As percent As perc

of first- of th

First- and Third- and As per- and As per- a

second- fourth- cent of second- cent of fou

Program participation and Total year year Total all Pell year Pell Total all Pell year 

type of institution number students students number Grants Grants number Grants Gra

Participated in ACG program 4,918,100 3,382,326 1,325,364 398,720 8.1 11.8 64,892 1.3 

Participated in ACG program only 

Total 2,252,328 1,982,721 61,957 81,367 3.6 4.1 † † 

Public four-year 144,466 122,554 21,661 7,323 5.1 6.0 † † Private nonprofit four-year 71,395 40,760 30,576 6,844 9.6 16.8 † † For-profit four-year 119,403 109,424 9,720 1,588 1.3 1.5 † † 

Public two-year 1,771,089 1,567,693 0 61,872 3.5 3.9 † † 

Private nonprofit two-year 13,907 13,149 0 1,368 9.8 10.4 † † 

For-profit two-year 132,068 129,141 0 2,372 1.8 1.8 † † 

Participated in SMART Grant program 

Total 2,751,997 1,460,231 1,288,910 317,353 11.5 21.7 65,384 2.4 

Public four-year 1,607,606 730,438 875,269 217,867 13.6 29.8 43,877 2.7 

Private nonprofit four-year 677,670 354,838 322,471 93,882 13.9 26.5 16,952 2.5 For-profit four-year 466,721 374,955 91,170 5,604 1.2 1.5 4,555 1.0 

† Not applicable.NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2007–08. Participating colleges are th

one ACG or SMART Grant. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants but student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reportethan 2 at two-year institutions and greater than 5 at four-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by class level but included SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).

— 97 — 
Table D-3. —Average number of Pell Grants, ACGs, and SMART Grants at participating institutions: 2007–08 

Program participation and 

type of institution 

Pell 

Grants 

First- and 

second-year 

students with 

Pell Grants 

Third- and 

fourth-year 

students with 

Pell Grants ACGs 

SMART 

Grants 

ACGs and 

SMART 

Grants 

Participated in ACG program 1,656 

Participated in ACG program only 

Total 1,472 

Public four-year 2,156 

Private nonprofit four-year 282 

For-profit four-year 1,474 

Public two-year 1,948 

Private nonprofit two-year 258 

For-profit two-year 796 

Participated in SMART Grant program 

Total 1,862 

Public four-year 3,045 

Private nonprofit four-year 794 

For-profit four-year 4,862 

1,139 

1,296 

1,829 

161 

1,351 

1,725 

244 

778 

988 

1,383 

416 

3,906 

446 

40 

323 

121 

120 

0 

0 

0 

872 

1,658 

378 

950 

134 

53 

109 

27 

20 

68 

25 

14 

215 

413 

110 

58 

22 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

44 

83 

20 

47 

156 

53 

109 

27 

20 

68 

25 

14 

259 

496 

130 

106 

NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2007–08. 

Participating colleges are those that disbursed at least one ACG or SMART grant. 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 AY0708 

(Nov. 25, 2008). 

 

APPENDIX D. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 
 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION: 2007–08 
 

— 98 — 
Table D-4. —Number and percentage distribution of institutions participating in ACG and SMART Grant programs by the numb

Table D-4.—2007–08 

Type of institution 

Number of ACG recipients in the college 

1–10 11–50 51–100 101–200 201–500 501–1,000 

Mor

Number of ACG-participating colleges 

 by number of ACGs in the college Total 513 

Public four-year 19 

Private nonprofit four-year 124 

For-profit four-year 68 

Public two-year 159 Private nonprofit two-year 30 

For-profit two-year 113 

Percentage distribution of ACG-participating 

 colleges by number of ACGs in the college Total 17.3 

Public four-year 3.2 Private nonprofit four-year 11.4 

For-profit four-year 41.5 

Public two-year 17.5 

Private nonprofit two-year 55.6 

For-profit two-year 68.1 

865 

54 

316 

54 

386 

13 

42 

29.1 

9.2 

29.0 

32.9 

42.5 

24.1 

25.3 

616 

70 

309 

21 

202 

8 

6 

20.7 

11.9 

28.3 

12.8 

22.2 

14.8 

3.6 

477 

96 

245 

17 

111 

3 

5 

16.1 

16.4 

22.5 

10.4 

12.2 

5.6 

3.0 

315 

189 

81 

3 

42 

0 

0 

10.6 

32.3 

7.4 

1.8 

4.6 

0.0 

0.0 

136 

115 

13 

1 

7 

0 

0 

4.6 

19.6 

1.2 

0.6 

0.8 

0.0 

0.0 

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

— 99 — 
Table D-4. —Number and percentage distribution of institutions participating in ACG and SMART Grant programs by the numb

Table D-4.—2007–08—Continued Type of institution 

Number of SMART Grant recipients in the college 

1–10 11–50 51–100 101–200 201–500 501–1,000 

Mo

Number of SMART Grant-participating colleges

 by number of SMART Grants in the college Total 561 619 

Public four-year 73 226 

Private nonprofit four-year 451 350 

For-profit four-year 37 43 

Percentage distribution of SMART Grant-participating 

colleges by number of SMART Grants in the college Total 38.0 41.9 

Public four-year 13.8 42.8 

Private nonprofit four-year 52.8 41.0 

For-profit four-year 38.5 44.8 

150 

104 

34 12 

10.1 19.7 

4.0 

12.5 

88 

73 

15 

0 

6.0 

13.8 

1.8 

0.0 

46 

42 

2 2 

3.1 

8.0 

0.2 

2.1 

12 

10 

1 1 

0.8 

1.9 

0.1 1.0 

NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2007–08. Participating colleges are th

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

systems and for-profit institutions with multiple campuses did not provide information at the campus level. Detail may not sum to totals because SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008). 

— 100 — 
Table D-5. —Number and percentage distribution of institutions participating in ACG and SMART Grant programs by the perce

Table D-5.—recipients who also received ACGs or SMART Grants: 2007–08 

Type of institution 

Percent of first- and second-year Pell Grant students with ACGs 

Less than 

2 percent 

2–4.9 5–9.9 10–19.9 20–29.9 30–39.9 

percent percent percent percent percent 

4

Number of ACG-participating colleges 

 by percent of first- and second-year Pell Grant students receiving ACGs Total 567 Public four-year 18 Private nonprofit four-year 32 For-profit four-year 82 Public two-year 318 Private nonprofit two-year 11 

For-profit two-year 106 

Percentage distribution of ACG-participating 

 colleges by percent of first- and second-year Pell Grant students receiving ACGs Total 19.1 

Public four-year 3.1 

Private nonprofit four-year 2.9 

For-profit four-year 50.0 Public two-year 35.0 Private nonprofit two-year 20.4 

For-profit two-year 63.9 

438 

36 44 32 

293 

9 

24 

14.7 

6.1 

4.0 

19.5 32.2 16.7 

14.5 

395 

54 

71 

24 

217 

9 

20 

13.3 

9.2 

6.5 

14.6 23.9 16.7 

12.0 

386 

102 

171 

16 

76 

11 

10 

13.0 

17.4 

15.7 

9.8 8.4 

20.4 

6.0 

296 

100 

178 

5 

3 

5 

5 

10.0 

17.1 

16.3 

3.0 0.3 

9.3 

3.0 

248 

101 

136 

4 

1 

6 

0 

8.4 

17.2 

12.5 

2.4 0.1 

11.1 

0.0 

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

— 101 — 
Table D-5. —Number and percentage distribution of institutions participating in ACG and SMART Grant programs by the perce

Table D-5.—recipients who also received ACGs or SMART Grants: 2007–08—Continued 

Percent of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant students with SMART Grants 

Less than 2–4.9 5–9.9 10–19.9 20–29.9 30–39.9 40 

Type of institution 2 percent percent percent percent percent percent Number of SMART Grant-participating colleges 

 by percent of third- and fourth-year Pell  Grant students receiving SMART Grants Total 333 555 341 180 38 14 

Public four-year 120 235 112 52 7 2 

Private nonprofit four-year 196 296 213 107 23 6 For-profit four-year 17 24 16 21 8 6 

Percentage distribution of SMART Grant-participating 

 colleges by percent of third- and fourth-year Pell  Grant students receiving SMART Grants Total 22.5 37.6 23.1 12.2 2.6 0.9 

Public four-year 22.7 44.5 21.2 9.8 1.3 0.4 

Private nonprofit four-year 23.0 34.7 24.9 12.5 2.7 0.7 

For-profit four-year 17.7 25.0 16.7 21.9 8.3 6.3 

NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2007–08. Participating colleges are th

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

systems and for-profit institutions with multiple campuses did not provide information at the campus level. Class level is institution-reported for AGrants but student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions and greater than 5 at four-year 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 AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008). 

— 102 — 
Table D-6.—	 Number and percentage distribution of ACGs and Pell Grants by class level and percentage 

Table D-6.—of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients with ACGs: 2007–08 

Type of grant and institution

First-time, 

 first-year Other first-year Second-year

Total first-

 and second-year 

Number of grants 

ACG 191,328 

Public four-year 111,460 

Private nonprofit four-year 43,218 

For-profit four-year 3,818 

Public two-year 30,893 

Private nonprofit two-year 717 

For-profit two-year 1,222 

Pell Grant only, no ACG 1,005,032 

Pell Grant (with or without ACG) 1,279,333 

Public four-year 339,599 

Private nonprofit four-year 153,352 

For-profit four-year 188,568 

Public two-year 539,346 

Private nonprofit two-year 4,361 

For-profit two-year 54,107 

Percentage distribution of grants 

ACG 48.3 

Public four-year 49.8 

Private nonprofit four-year 43.2 

For-profit four-year 53.7 

Public two-year 50.5 

Private nonprofit two-year 52.8 

For-profit two-year 52.1 

Pell Grant only, no ACG 33.8 

Pell Grant (with or without ACG) 38.1 

Percent of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs 

Total 15.0 

Public four-year 32.8 

Private nonprofit four-year 28.2 

For-profit four-year 2.0 

Public two-year 5.7 

Private nonprofit two-year 16.4 

For-profit two-year 2.3 

115,130 

62,083 

29,831 

2,004 

20,187 

400 

625 

923,114 

945,969 

142,010 

74,372 

178,761 

495,329 

4,295 

51,202 

29.1 

27.8 

29.8 

28.2 

33.0 

29.4 

26.6 

31.1 

28.2 

12.2 

43.7 

40.1 

1.1 

4.1 

9.3 

1.2 

89,325 

50,131 

27,075 

1,285 

10,092 

242 

500 

1,041,926 

1,133,094 

352,440 

159,838 

101,256 

495,433 

4,183 

19,944 

22.6 

22.4 

27.0 

18.1 

16.5 

17.8 

21.3 

35.1 

33.7 

7.9 

14.2 

16.9 

1.3 

2.0 

5.8 

2.5 

395,783 

223,674 

100,124 

7,107 

61,172 

1,359 

2,347 

2,970,072 

3,358,396 

834,049 

387,562 

468,585 

1,530,108 

12,839 

125,253 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

11.8 

26.8 

25.8 

1.5 

4.0 

10.6 

1.9 

NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2007–08.
 

Participating colleges are those that disbursed at least one ACG. Class level is institution-reported for ACG recipients
 

but student-reported for Pell Grant recipients. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions
 

were excluded. 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 AY0708 

(Nov. 25, 2008).
 

APPENDIX D. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION: 2007–08 

— 103 — 
Table D-7.—	 Number and percentage distribution of SMART Grants and total Pell Grants by class level 

Table D-7.—and percentage of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients with SMART Grants: 2007–08 

Type of grant and institution Third-year Fourth-year

Total third-

 and fourth-year 

Number of grants 

SMART 

Public four-year 

Private nonprofit four-year 

For-profit four-year 

Pell Grant only, no SMART	 

Pell Grant (with or without SMART) 

Public four-year 

Private nonprofit four-year 

For-profit four-year 

Percentage distribution of grants 

SMART 

Public four-year 

Private nonprofit four-year 

For-profit four-year 

Pell Grant only, no SMART 

Pell Grant (with or without SMART) 

Percent of Pell Grant recipients with SMART Grants 

Total 

Public four-year 

Private nonprofit four-year 

For-profit four-year 

32,550 

21,101 

8,495 

2,954 

644,240 

678,204 

433,898 

177,303 

67,003 

49.8 

48.1 

50.2 

64.9 

50.4 

50.6 

4.8 

4.9 

4.8 

4.4 

32,769 

22,728 

8,441 

1,600 

634,440 

661,237 

456,663 

173,118 

31,456 

50.2 

51.9 

49.8 

35.1 

49.6 

49.4 

5.0 

5.0 

4.9 

5.1 

65,319 

43,829 

16,936 

4,554 

1,278,680 

1,339,441 

890,561 

350,421 

98,459 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

4.9 

4.9 

4.8 

4.6 

NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2007–08. 

Participating colleges are those that disbursed at least one SMART Grant. Class level is institution-reported for SMART 

Grant recipients but student-reported for Pell Grant recipients. Student-reported class levels 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 AY0708 

(Nov. 25, 2008). 

APPENDIX D. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION: 2007–08 

— 104 — 
Table D-8.—	 Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant recipients by 

Table D-8.—gender, citizenship, and age and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs or SMART 

Table D-8.—Grants: 2007–08 

Class level and 

type of grant 

Gender Citizenship 

Eligible 

U.S. citizen noncitizen 

Age 

Male Female 

18 or 

younger 19–23 

24 or 

older 

Number of grants 

First- and second-year students 

ACG recipients 150,342 

Pell Grant-only

 recipients 979,257 

Total Pell Grant 

 recipients 1,128,704 

Third- and fourth-year students 

SMART Grant 

 recipients 37,985 

Pell Grant-only

 recipients 485,393 

Total Pell Grant 

 recipients 519,566 

Percentage distribution of grants 

First- and second-year students 

ACG recipients 38.3 

Pell Grant-only

 recipients 33.2 

Total Pell Grant 

 recipients 33.8 

Third- and fourth-year students 

SMART Grant 

 recipients 58.3 

Pell Grant-only

 recipients 38.1 

Total Pell Grant 

 recipients 38.9 

Percent of Pell Grant recipients 

 with ACGs or SMART Grants 

First- and second-year 

 students with ACGs 13.3 

Third- and fourth-year students

 with SMART Grants 7.3 

242,047 

1,970,344 

2,206,086 

27,216 

789,381 

815,881 

61.7 

66.8 

66.2 

41.7 

61.9 

61.1 

11.0 

3.3 

395,783 

2,741,041 

3,129,365 

65,319 

1,196,454 

1,257,215 

100.0 

92.4 

93.3 

100.0 

94.0 

94.2 

12.6 

5.2 

0 

225,842 

225,842 

0 

76,970 

76,970 

0.0 

7.6 

6.7 

0.0 

6.0 

5.8 

0.0 

0.0 

202,788 

329,477 

527,743 

315 

1,098 

1,468 

51.3 

11.1 

15.7 

0.5 

0.1 

0.1 

38.4 

21.5 

192,521 

1,208,991 

1,396,166 

44,979 

634,026 

677,269 

48.7 

40.7 

41.6 

68.9 

49.6 

50.6 

13.8 

6.6 

289 

1,431,518 

1,434,396 

19,996 

643,545 

660,693 

0.1 

48.2 

42.7 

30.6 

50.3 

49.3 

0.0 

3.0 

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. Missing values are excluded, so there 

will be small differences in the totals for gender, citizenship, and age. 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 AY0708 

(Nov. 25, 2008). 

APPENDIX D. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION: 2007–08 

— 105 — 
Table D-9.—	 Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant recipients by 

Table D-9.—dependency and income and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs or SMART Grants: 

Table D-9.—2007–08 

Class level and type of grant 

Dependency 

Independent Dependent 

Income of dependent students’ parents 

Less than $15,000– More than 

$15,000 30,000 $30,000 

Number of grants 

First- and second-year students 

ACG recipients 

Pell Grant-only recipients 

Total Pell Grant recipients 

Third- and fourth-year students 

SMART Grant recipients 

Pell Grant-only recipients 

Total Pell Grant recipients 

Percentage distribution of grants 

First- and second-year students 

ACG recipients 

Pell Grant-only recipients 

Total Pell Grant recipients 

Third- and fourth-year students 

SMART Grant recipients 

Pell Grant-only recipients 

Total Pell Grant recipients 

Percent of Pell Grant recipients 

 with ACGs or SMART Grants 

First- and second-year students

 with ACGs 

Third- and fourth-year students

 with SMART Grants 

17,861 

1,801,804 

1,821,868 

24,828 

739,949 

761,649 

4.5 

60.7 

54.2 

38.0 

57.9 

56.9 

1.0 

3.3 

377,742 

1,168,268 

1,536,528 

40,462 

538,731 

577,792 

95.5 

39.3 

45.8 

62.0 

42.1 

43.1 

24.6 

7.0 

106,762 

458,830 

562,548 

11,848 

178,873 

190,405 

28.3 

39.3 

36.6 

29.3 

33.2 

33.0 

19.0 

6.2 

123,654 

390,464 

510,917 

12,364 

175,888 

187,830 

32.7 

33.4 

33.3 

30.6 

32.7 

32.5 

24.2 

6.6 

147,278 

318,930 

462,971 

16,247 

183,921 

199,505 

39.0 

27.3 

30.1 

40.2 

34.1 

34.5 

31.8 

8.1 

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. Missing values are excluded, so there 

will be small differences in the totals for dependency and income. 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 AY0708 

(Nov. 25, 2008). 

APPENDIX D. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION: 2007–08 

— 106 — 
Table D-10. —Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant recipients by Expected Family Contrib

Table D-10.—percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs or SMART Grants: 2007–08 

EFC of dependent students EFC of independe

1,000– 2,000– 3,000 1,000

Class level and type of grant Zero 1–999 1,999 2,999 Zero 1–999 1,99

or more 

Number of grants First- and second-year students 

ACG recipients 144,784 69,317 57,706 53,554 52,381 14,354 1,576 93

Pell Grant-only recipients 613,371 190,331 138,435 118,011 108,120 1,138,828 229,098 201,67

Total Pell Grant recipients 754,107 257,963 194,748 170,304 159,406 1,154,082 231,020 202,96

Third- and fourth-year students 

SMART Grant recipients 12,687 8,993 6,195 6,055 6,532 13,112 3,631 3,20Pell Grant-only recipients 207,346 112,132 73,660 70,832 74,761 407,142 102,694 94,50Total Pell Grant recipients 219,648 120,787 79,581 76,683 81,093 418,687 105,890 97,27

Percentage distribution of grants First- and second-year students 

ACG recipients 38.3 18.4 15.3 14.2 13.9 80.4 8.8 5

Pell Grant-only recipients 52.5 16.3 11.8 10.1 9.3 63.2 12.7 11Total Pell Grant recipients 49.1 16.8 12.7 11.1 10.4 63.3 12.7 11

Third- and fourth-year students 

SMART Grant recipients 31.4 22.2 15.3 15.0 16.1 52.8 14.6 12

Pell Grant-only recipients 38.5 20.8 13.7 13.1 13.9 55.0 13.9 12Total Pell Grant recipients 38.0 20.9 13.8 13.3 14.0 55.0 13.9 12

Percent of Pell Grant recipients

 with ACGs or SMART Grants 

First- and second-year students

 with ACGs 19.2 26.9 29.6 31.4 32.9 1.2 0.7 0

Third- and fourth-year students

 with SMART Grants 5.8 7.4 7.8 7.9 8.1 3.1 3.4 3

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

class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions and greater than 5 at four-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by clasExpected Contribution (EFC) is a measure of a family’s financial strength and indicates how much of a student’s and family’s financial resources should be available to help pay for his or her education. The EFC is an index number used to determine Pell Grant amount. Missing values are esmall differences in the totals compared with other tables. 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 AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).

— 107 — 
Table D-11.—	 Average amounts of Expected Family Contribution, income of dependent students’ 

Table D-11.—parents, and average Pell Grant, ACG, and SMART Grant amounts: 2007–08 

Class level and type of grant 

EFC of 

independent 

students 

EFC of 

dependent 

students 

Income of 

dependent 

students’ 

parents 

Pell 

Grant 

amount 

ACG/ 

SMART 

Grant 

amount 

Combined 

total 

grant 

amount 

First- and second-year students 

ACG recipients 

Pell Grant-only recipients 

277 

602 

1,148 

816 

$25,745 

20,811 

$3,002 

2,479 

$774 

† 

$3,775 

2,479 

Third- and fourth-year students 

SMART Grant recipients 

Pell Grant-only recipients 

848 

798 

1,259 

1,095 

25,997 

23,665 

3,059 

2,770 

3,133 

† 

6,192 

2,770 

† 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. 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 his or her education. The EFC is an index number used to 

determine the Pell Grant amount. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0708 

(Nov. 25, 2008). 

 

APPENDIX D. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION: 2007–08 

— 108 — 
Table D-12. —Number of grants, total dollar amounts, and average grant amounts awarded to dependent students with ACGs o

Table D-12.—by Expected Family Contribution of the students: 2007–08 

ACGs 

Percent of 

Percent combined 

Combined of total Percent total Pell Averag

Total Total total Pell Pell of total Grant P

Number Pell Grant ACG Grant and Grant ACG and ACG Gra

EFC of ACGs amount amount ACG amount amount amount amount amou

Total dependent students 380,603 $1,131,048,894 $295,344,229 $1,426,393,123 100.0 100.0 100.0 $2,97

Zero 145,800 586,488,501 109,299,873 695,788,374 51.9 37.0 48.8 4,02

1–999 69,809 257,399,997 55,733,798 313,133,795 22.8 18.9 22.0 3,68

1,000–1,999 58,170 154,378,716 45,668,118 200,046,834 13.6 15.5 14.0 2,65

2,000–2,999 54,039 92,842,224 42,738,697 135,580,921 8.2 14.5 9.5 1,71

3,000 or more 52,785 39,939,456 41,903,743 81,843,199 3.5 14.2 5.7 75

SMART Grants 

Percent of 

combined 

Combined Percent Percent total Pell 

Total total Pell of total of total Grant and Averag

Number Total SMART Grant and Pell SMART SMART P

of SMART Pell Grant Grant SMART Grant Grant Grant Grant Gra

EFC Grants amount amount amount amount amount amount amou

Total dependent students 40,498 $119,800,116 $129,734,215 $249,534,331 100.0 100.0 100.0 $2,96

Zero 12,699 52,942,829 39,843,686 92,786,515 44.2 30.7 37.2 4,17

1–999 8,999 34,368,610 28,845,424 63,214,034 28.7 22.2 25.3 3,82

1,000–1,999 6,201 16,906,336 19,960,221 36,866,557 14.1 15.4 14.8 2,722,000–2,999 6,060 10,626,930 19,589,547 30,216,477 8.9 15.1 12.1 1,75

3,000 or more 6,539 4,955,411 21,495,337 26,450,748 4.1 16.6 10.6 75

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 

(for dependent students) should be available to help pay for his or her education. The EFC is an index number used to determine the Pell Grant 

sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).

— 109 — 
Table D-13. —Number and percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by field of study: 2007–08 

Type of institution Total 

Field of study 

Life 

sciences* Engineering 

Computer 

science 

Physical 

sciences Mathematics Technology 

Number 

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

Percentage distribution

 within type of institution Total Public four-year Private nonprofit four-year For-profit four-year 

Percentage distribution 

 by type of institution Total Public four-year Private nonprofit four-year For-profit four-year 

65,384 

43,877 16,952 

4,555 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

67.1 

25.9 

7.0 

25,975 

18,455 

7,503 

17 

39.7 

42.1 

44.3 

0.4 

100.0 

71.0 

28.9 

0.1 

13,594 10,365 

3,087 

142 

20.8 

23.6 

18.2 

3.1 

100.0 

76.2 

22.7 

1.0 

10,005 

3,958 

2,241 

3,806 

15.3 

9.0 

13.2 

83.6 

100.0 

39.6 

22.4 

38.0 

6,160 4,528 

1,629 

3 

9.4 

10.3 

9.6 

0.1 

100.0 

73.5 26.4 

0.0 

4,034 2,809 

1,225 

0 

6.2 

6.4 

7.2 

0.0 

100.0 

69.6 

30.4 

0.0 

3,053 2,166 

300 

587 

4.7 

4.9 

1.8 

12.9 

100.0 

70.9 

9.8 

19.2 

* Life sciences includes biological and biomedical sciences, agriculture, natural resources and conservation, and psychology (physiological psycpsychobiology only).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 AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008).

— 110 — 
Table D-14. —Among students who received an ACG in 2006–07, number and percentage who received an ACG, SMART Grant

Table D-14.—later in 2007–08 

Status in 2007–08 

ACG 

recipients Received Pell Grant 

by class Received ACG Received SMART in 2007–08 (no ACG 

level in in 2007–08 Grant in 2007–08 or SMART Grant) 

Base-year 2006–07 cohorts 2006–07 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

First-year students in 2006–07 

Total 230,883 61,285 26.5 1,824 0.8 110,041 47.7 

Public four-year 138,012 34,465 25.0 1,357 1.0 68,393 49.6 

Private nonprofit four-year 58,825 19,469 33.1 427 0.7 25,931 44.1 For-profit four-year 2,225 711 32.0 23 1.0 913 41.0 

Public two-year 30,062 6,097 20.3 17 0.1 14,039 46.7 

Private nonprofit two-year 894 219 24.5 0 0.0 407 45.5 For-profit two-year 865 324 37.5 0 0.0 358 41.4 

Second-year students in 2006–07 

Total 68,818 2,619 3.8 8,365 12.2 43,804 63.7 

Public four-year 40,033 1,996 5.0 5,429 13.6 25,076 62.6 

Private nonprofit four-year 22,363 309 1.4 2,722 12.2 14,820 66.3 

For-profit four-year 475 25 5.3 24 5.1 288 60.6 

Public two-year 5,540 277 5.0 179 3.2 3,427 61.9 Private nonprofit two-year 203 6 3.0 10 4.9 121 59.6 

For-profit two-year 204 6 2.9 1 0.5 72 35.3 

NOTE: Class level is based on “academic year,” which may change during the year. A student with an ACG as a freshman may receive another sophomore and have enough credits to be a junior eligible for a SMART Grant in the second term. A student classified as a sophomore in the se

year can receive a second ACG as a sophomore in the first term of the second year. Less than 1 percent receive both an ACG and SMART Gra

year (about 1,500). They have been included in both the ACG and the SMART Grant cohorts in 2006–07 and included in both the ACG and SMA

for 2007–08. Therefore, the 2007–08 percentages add up to a little more than 100 percent. ACG students enrolled at two-year institutions in 200

Grants in 2007–08 if they transfer to a four-year institution. Students whose records did not match to those in the 2007–08 Pell Grant file may hacompleted a degree, or not been enrolled that year. Enrollment and degree completion status is not available. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007) and 

— 111 — 
Table D-15. —Among students who received a SMART Grant in 2006–07, number and percentage who received a SMART or Pe

Table D-15.—in 2007–08 

SMART 

Base-year 2006–07 cohorts 

Grant 

recipients 

by class 

level in 

2006–07 

Received SMART 

Grant in 2007–08 

Number Percent 

Received Pell Grant 

in 2007–08 (no 

ACG or SMART Grant) 

Number Percent 

No Pell Grant, 

SMART Grant in 

(including tho

enrolled and gr

Number 

Third-year students in 2006–07 

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

Fourth-year students in 2006–07 

Total Public four-year Private nonprofit four-year 

For-profit four-year 

29,746 

19,658 

7,795 

2,293 

32,584 22,499 

8,469 

1,616 

16,840 11,178 

4,665 

997 

2,125 1,519 

436 

170 

56.6 

56.9 

59.8 

43.5 

6.5 

6.8 

5.1 

10.5 

6,432 

4,568 

1,380 

484 

10,388 

8,010 

1,943 

435 

21.6 

23.2 

17.7 

21.1 

31.9 

35.6 

22.9 

26.9 

6,471 

3,909 

1,750 

812 

20,071 

12,970 

6,090 

1,011 

NOTE: Fourth-year students who had received the maximum SMART Grant amount ($8,000 for two years) may still continue to receive Pell Gracompleted all credits required to graduate. Students who did not receive a Pell Grant in 2007–08 may have graduated, lost Pell Grant eligibility, year. Enrollment and degree completion status is not available.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007) an

— 112 — 
Table D-16. —Among students who received a SMART Grant in 2006–07, number and percentage who received a SMART or Pe

Table D-16.—in 2007–08, by class level and field of study in 2006–07 

SMART 

Grant No Pell Grant, AC

recipients Received Pell Grant SMART Grant in 2

by class Received SMART in 2007–08 (no (including those 

level in Grant in 2007–08 ACG or SMART Grant) enrolled and grad

Base-year 2006–07 cohorts 2006–07 Number Percent Number Percent Number Third-year students in 2006–07, by field of study 

Total 29,746 16,840 56.6 6,432 21.6 6,471 

Life sciences 11,653 6,836 58.7 2,526 21.7 2,290 

Engineering 5,931 3,511 59.2 1,169 19.7 1,249 

Computer science 4,816 2,335 48.5 1,091 22.7 1,390 

Physical sciences 2,929 1,718 58.7 651 22.2 560 

Mathematics 2,014 1,160 57.6 420 20.9 434 Technology 1,408 732 52.0 317 22.5 359 

Multidisciplinary studies 725 369 50.9 219 30.2 137 

Critical foreign language 270 179 66.3 39 14.4 52 

Fourth-year students in 2006–07, by field of study 

Total 32,584 2,125 6.5 10,388 31.9 20,071 

Life sciences 12,099 702 5.8 3,583 29.6 7,814 

Engineering 7,261 529 7.3 2,617 36.0 4,115 Computer science 4,968 396 8.0 1,482 29.8 3,090 

Physical sciences 3,110 195 6.3 1,043 33.5 1,872 

Mathematics 2,199 140 6.4 709 32.2 1,350 Technology 1,636 102 6.2 559 34.2 975 

Multidisciplinary studies 972 35 3.6 318 32.7 619 

Critical foreign language 339 26 7.7 77 22.7 236 

NOTE: Fourth-year students who had received the maximum SMART Grant amount ($8,000 for two years) may still continue to receive Pell Gracompleted all credits required to graduate. Students who did not receive a Pell Grant in 2007–08 may have graduated, lost Pell Grant eligibility, 

year. Enrollment and degree completion status is not available.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007) an

— 113 — 
Table D-17. —Among students at ACG- or SMART Grant–participating institutions who received Pell Grants only in 2006–07, nu

Table D-17.—who received a Pell Grant one year later in 2007–08, by ACG or SMART Grant status in 2006–07 

Received Pell Grant only in 2006–07 Received Pell Grant and ACG or 

Pell Grant-only Number of Number of Number of 

recipients in Pell Grant Pell Grant students with SMART, o

2006–07 (no ACG renewals renewal ACG or SMART Grant ren

Base-year 2006–07 cohorts or SMART Grant) in 2007–08* rate Grant in 2006–07 in 200

 Total 3,872,197 2,157,243 55.7 362,031 26

First-year students in 2006–07 

Total 1,698,092 956,912 56.4 230,883 17

Public four-year 288,504 185,844 64.4 138,012 10

Private nonprofit four-year 155,689 100,868 64.8 58,825 4

For-profit four-year 250,598 125,550 50.1 2,225 Public two-year 930,683 508,568 54.6 30,062 2

Private nonprofit two-year 8,176 4,796 58.7 894 

For-profit two-year 64,442 31,286 48.5 865 

Second-year students in 2006–07 

Total 969,140 595,947 61.5 68,818 5

Public four-year 280,325 198,504 70.8 40,033 3

Private nonprofit four-year 128,622 91,563 71.2 22,363 1

For-profit four-year 74,587 38,302 51.4 475 

Public two-year 467,148 261,522 56.0 5,540 

Private nonprofit two-year 3,928 1,815 46.2 203 

For-profit two-year 14,530 4,241 29.2 204 

Third-year students in 2006–07 

Total 601,827 416,205 69.2 29,746 2

Public four-year 390,423 277,138 71.0 19,658 1

Private nonprofit four-year 161,325 113,035 70.1 7,795 

For-profit four-year 50,079 26,032 52.0 2,293 

Fourth-year students in 2006–07 

Total 603,138 188,179 31.2 32,584 1

Public four-year 421,547 138,870 32.9 22,499 

Private nonprofit four-year 157,099 42,678 27.2 8,469 

For-profit four-year 24,492 6,631 27.1 1,616 

* Includes about 1 percent who also received ACGs or SMART Grants in 2007–08. See Table D-18.NOTE: Class level for ACGs and SMART Grants is institution-reported and based on credits. Class level for Pell Grant-only students is student-

include all 2006–07 Pell Grant recipients who also received a Pell Grant in 2007–08 (including an ACG or SMART Grant). Those who were not r

Pell Grant eligibility, completed a program, or not been enrolled. Enrollment and degree completion status is not available.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007) and 

— 114 — 
Table D-18. —Number and percentage of students at ACG- or SMART Grant–participating institutions who received Pell Grants 

Table D-18.—their ACG, SMART, or Pell Grant status one year later in 2007–08 

Status in 2007–08 

Pell Grant Received Pell Grant 

recipients Received ACG Received SMART in 2007–08 

by class level in 2007–08 Grant in 2007–08 (no ACG or SMART) 

Base-year 2006–07 cohorts in 2006–07 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

 Total 3,872,197 25,075 0.6 19,371 0.5 2,113,053 54.6 

First-year students in 2006–07 

Total 1,698,092 22,724 1.3 2,730 0.2 931,639 54.9 

Public four-year 288,504 10,050 3.5 1,103 0.4 174,820 60.6 Private nonprofit four-year 155,689 3,858 2.5 463 0.3 96,581 62.0 For-profit four-year 250,598 821 0.3 922 0.4 123,823 49.4 

Public two-year 930,683 7,718 0.8 237 0.0 500,615 53.8 

Private nonprofit two-year 8,176 50 0.6 1 0.0 4,745 58.0 

For-profit two-year 64,442 227 0.4 4 0.0 31,055 48.2 

Second-year students in 2006–07 

Total 969,140 2,248 0.2 8,607 0.9 585,165 60.4 

Public four-year 280,325 1,155 0.4 4,294 1.5 193,108 68.9 

Private nonprofit four-year 128,622 264 0.2 1,876 1.5 89,431 69.5 For-profit four-year 74,587 47 0.1 640 0.9 37,618 50.4 Public two-year 467,148 767 0.2 1,781 0.4 258,983 55.4 Private nonprofit two-year 3,928 8 0.2 8 0.2 1,799 45.8 

For-profit two-year 14,530 7 0.0 8 0.1 4,226 29.1 

Third-year students in 2006–07 

Total 601,827 † † 6,372 1.1 409,801 68.1 

Public four-year 390,423 † † 4,573 1.2 272,543 69.8 

Private nonprofit four-year 161,325 † † 1,506 0.9 111,520 69.1 

For-profit four-year 50,079 † † 293 0.6 25,738 51.4 

Fourth-year students in 2006–07 

Total 603,138 † † 1,662 0.3 186,448 30.9 

Public four-year 421,547 † † 1,257 0.3 137,558 32.6 

Private nonprofit four-year 157,099 † † 349 0.2 42,317 26.9 

For-profit four-year 24,492 † † 56 0.2 6,573 26.8 

† Not applicable. NOTE: Class level for Pell Grant–only students is student-reported. Students without Pell Grants in 2007–08 may have lost Pell Grant eligibility, not been enrolled. Enrollment and degree completion status is not available.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007) and 

— 115 — 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

APPENDIX E 

Supplemental Tables on ACG and National SMART 

Grant Program Participation by State: 2007–08 

— 117 —
 
 

—

Table E-1.—

Table E-1.—

 

APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY STATE 2007–08 

Table E-1.	 Number of first- and second-year students at ACG-participating institutions with Pell Grants 

and number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, by state of student’s residence: 

2006–07 and 2007–08 

Number of 

first- and Number of 

second-year Pell Grant 

students with recipients Percent of first- and second-year 

State of student’s Pell Grants with ACGs Pell Grant recipients with ACGs 

residence 2007–08 2007–08 2006–07 2007–08 Change

 Total 3,301,579 395,783 10.2 12.0 1.8 

Alabama 60,318 4,585 6.6 7.6 1.0 

Alaska 4,215 261 3.3 6.2 2.9 

Arizona 51,438 2,581 2.9 5.0 2.1 

Arkansas 42,212 4,389 9.8 10.4 0.6 

California 354,502 39,803 9.8 11.2 1.5 

Colorado 42,899 4,046 8.5 9.4 0.9 

Connecticut 24,687 3,363 10.1 13.6 3.5 

Delaware 6,795 583 6.1 8.6 2.5 

District of Columbia 3,480 464 10.7 13.3 2.6 

Florida 196,280 20,239 9.3 10.3 1.0 

Georgia 110,030 12,199 9.9 11.1 1.2 

Hawaii 8,719 886 8.8 10.2 1.4 

Idaho 16,010 2,060 10.1 12.9 2.7 

Illinois 134,097 14,168 8.5 10.6 2.1 

Indiana 77,565 10,541 10.7 13.6 2.9 

Iowa 36,111 5,033 10.5 13.9 3.4 

Kansas 27,839 3,471 10.6 12.5 1.9 

Kentucky 59,352 6,426 8.8 10.8 2.1 

Louisiana 47,358 7,266 13.9 15.3 1.4 

Maine 13,237 2,713 17.0 20.5 3.5 

Maryland 47,080 5,289 9.7 11.2 1.5 

Massachusetts 46,592 8,917 15.9 19.1 3.2 

Michigan 136,503 9,211 5.1 6.7 1.6 

Minnesota 55,575 7,659 11.6 13.8 2.1 

Mississippi 56,481 5,441 6.8 9.6 2.8 

Missouri 70,865 7,147 8.8 10.1 1.2 

Montana 10,278 1,339 11.0 13.0 2.0 

Nebraska 20,530 3,777 15.6 18.4 2.8 

Nevada 13,890 725 8.5 5.2 -3.3 

New Hampshire 8,702 1,611 14.0 18.5 4.5 

New Jersey 74,050 9,687 12.2 13.1 0.8 

New Mexico 28,702 1,744 4.2 6.1 1.9 

New York 214,325 30,882 12.1 14.4 2.3 

North Carolina 107,993 13,257 10.9 12.3 1.4 

North Dakota 7,235 1,228 15.2 17.0 1.8 

Ohio 151,237 18,720 10.9 12.4 1.5 

Oklahoma 39,269 5,231 11.3 13.3 2.0 

Oregon 35,129 3,041 7.4 8.7 1.2 

Pennsylvania 115,371 20,814 15.9 18.0 2.1 

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

— 118 — 
 

Table E-1.—	 Number of first- and second-year students at ACG-participating institutions with Pell Grants 

Table E-1.—and number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, by state of student’s residence: 

Table E-1.—2006–07 and 2007–08—Continued 

Number of 

first- and Number of 

second-year Pell Grant 

students with recipients Percent of first- and second-year 

State of student’s 

residence 

Rhode Island 

Pell Grants

2007–08 

9,532 

 with ACGs 

2007–08 

1,208 

Pell Grant

2006–07 

10.2 

 recipients with A

2007–08 

12.7 

CGs 

Change 

2.4 

South Carolina 55,054 7,309 10.4 13.3 2.8 

South Dakota 9,275 1,587 14.5 17.1 2.6 

Tennessee 69,311 8,382 9.9 12.1 2.2 

Texas 267,460 36,430 11.2 13.6 2.4 

Utah 21,327 1,043 3.2 4.9 1.7 

Vermont 5,314 1,076 15.3 20.2 4.9 

Virginia 64,969 6,503 9.9 10.0 0.1 

Washington 52,310 4,668 7.1 8.9 1.8 

West Virginia 18,312 1,992 9.1 10.9 1.8 

Wisconsin 53,765 8,621 12.9 16.0 3.1 

Wyoming 4,192 400 8.9 9.5 0.7 

Puerto Rico 102,667 14,672 11.8 14.3 2.5 

All others* 6,332 993 12.0 15.7 3.7 

* Including all other U.S. jurisdictions other than Puerto Rico (i.e., American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia,
 

Guam, the Marshall Islands, the Northern Marianas, Palau, and the Virgin Islands). Also included are ACG-eligible students
 

from other countries and those with an unknown residence state.
 

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 or greater than 5 

at four-year institutions were excluded.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0708 

(Nov. 25, 2008).
 

APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY STATE 2007–08 

— 119 — 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 

 

APPENDIX F 

Change in STEM Majors From 

2003–04 to 2007–08 

— 121 —
 
Table F-1. —Total number of undergraduates and the number and percentage of them who were in STEM majors, by student and in

Table F-1.—2003–04 and 2007–08 

Student and institutional characteristics 

2003–04 2007–08 Change betw

All under- 

graduates 

All under- graduates 

All STEM majors 

Percent 

of all 

underTotal graduates All under- graduates 

All STEM majors 

Percent 

of all 

underTotal graduates 

 Total 

Type of institution 

Public four-year Private nonprofit four-year Public two-year Private for-profit Other 

Class level 

First-year Second-year Third-year Fourth-year Fifth-year Unclassified 

Gender 

Male Female 

Race/ethnicity 

White Black Hispanic Asian Othera 

19,044,000 

6,091,000 

2,744,000 

8,473,000 

1,026,000 

710,000 

7,012,000 

4,940,000 

2,631,000 

2,483,000 

542,000 

1,436,000 

8,076,000 

10,969,000 

11,977,000 

2,674,000 

2,456,000 

1,028,000 

910,000 

2,588,000 

1,113,000 

408,000 

800,000 

216,000 

52,000 

800,000 

688,000 436,000 

469,000 

115,000 

81,000 

1,768,000 

820,000 

1,610,000 

350,000 

303,000 

199,000 

127,000 

13.6 

18.3 

14.9 

9.4 

21.0 

7.3 

11.4 

13.9 

16.6 

18.9 

21.2 

5.6 

21.9 

7.5 

13.4 

13.1 12.3 

19.4 

14.0 

20,928,000 

6,690,000 

2,949,000 

9,112,000 

1,550,000 

628,000 

8,517,000 

5,724,000 

2,729,000 

2,760,000 

396,000 

802,000 

9,013,000 

11,915,000 

12,924,000 

2,925,000 

2,960,000 

1,236,000 

883,000 

2,905,000 

1,331,000 

425,000 

874,000 

232,000 

42,000 

976,000 778,000 

480,000 

534,000 

86,000 

52,000 

1,949,000 

955,000 

1,826,000 

339,000 

367,000 

241,000 

132,000 

13.9 

19.9 

14.4 

9.6 

15.0 

6.7 

11.5 

13.6 

17.6 

19.3 

21.7 

6.5 

21.6 

8.0 

14.1 

11.6 

12.4 

19.5 

14.9 

1,884,000 

599,000 

205,000 

639,000 

524,000 

-82,000 

1,505,000 

784,000 

98,000 

277,000 

-146,000 

-634,000 

937,000 

946,000 947,000 

251,000 

504,000 208,000 

-27,000 

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

— 122 —
 
Table F-1. —Total number of undergraduates and the number and percentage of them who were in STEM majors, by student and in

Table F-1.—2003–04 and 2007–08—Continued 

Student and 

institutional characteristics 

2003–04 2007–08 Change betw

All under- 

graduates 

All under- graduates 

All STEM majors 

Percent 

of all 

underTotal graduates All under- graduates 

All STEM majors 

Percent 

of all 

underTotal graduates 

Dependency status 

Dependent Independent 

Total income level 

Dependent 

Less than $30,000 $30,000–$59,999 $60,000–$99,999 $100,000 or more 

Independent 

Less than $10,000 $10,000–$29,999 $30,000 or more 

Received Pell Grant 

No Yes 

Grade point average (GPA) 

Less than 3.00 3.00 or more 

9,622,000 

9,422,000 

2,215,000 2,698,000 2,762,000 

1,947,000 

2,155,000 

3,214,000 

4,053,000 

13,865,000 

5,180,000 

8,436,000 

10,599,000 

1,504,000 

1,084,000 

341,000 

416,000 

435,000 

312,000 

276,000 

368,000 

440,000 

1,874,000 

714,000 

1,184,000 

1,403,000 

15.6 

11.5 15.4 

15.4 

15.7 

16.0 

12.8 

11.5 

10.9 

13.5 

13.8 

14.0 

13.2 

11,081,000 

9,846,000 2,183,000 

2,784,000 

3,044,000 

3,070,000 

2,268,000 

3,216,000 

4,363,000 

15,208,000 

5,720,000 

9,387,000 

11,471,000 

1,787,000 

1,118,000 

317,000 

415,000 

511,000 

544,000 

301,000 

344,000 

472,000 

2,155,000 

750,000 

1,308,000 

1,590,000 

16.1 

11.4 

14.5 

14.9 

16.8 

17.7 

13.3 

10.7 

10.8 

14.2 

13.1 

13.9 

13.9 

1,459,000 

424,000 

-32,000 

86,000 

282,000 

1,123,000 

113,000 

2,000 

310,000 

1,343,000 

540,000 

951,000 

872,000 

* Indicates that the change was statistically significant at the .05 level.

a “Other” includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, more than one race, and other.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 and 2007–08 National Postsecondary Student Aid Studie

— 123 —
 
Table F-2. —Total number of Pell Grant recipients and the number and percentage of them who were in STEM majors, by student a

Table F-2.—characteristics: 2003–04 and 2007–08 

2003–04 2007–08 Change betw

All Pell Grant All Pell Grant 

STEM majors STEM majors 

Percent Percent 

All Pell of all Pell All Pell of all Pell All Pe

Grant Grant Grant Grant Gran

Student and under- under- under- under- under

institutional characteristics graduates Total graduates graduates Total graduates graduates 

 Total 5,180,000 714,000 13.8 5,720,000 750,000 13.1 540,000 

Type of institution 

Public four-year 1,606,000 283,000 17.6 1,697,000 322,000 18.9 91,000 

Private nonprofit four-year 762,000 110,000 14.5 757,000 104,000 13.7 -5,000 

Public two-year 1,887,000 178,000 9.4 1,932,000 169,000 8.7 45,000 

Private for-profit 575,000 119,000 20.7 968,000 133,000 13.7 393,000 

Other 349,000 24,000 6.9 366,000 23,000 6.3 17,000 

Class level 

First-year 2,321,000 271,000 11.7 2,629,000 287,000 10.9 308,000 

Second-year 1,362,000 181,000 13.3 1,554,000 190,000 12.2 192,000 

Third-year 683,000 111,000 16.3 766,000 128,000 16.7 83,000 

Fourth-year 641,000 114,000 17.8 647,000 124,000 19.2 6,000 

Fifth-year 143,000 32,000 22.6 105,000 20,000 18.9 -38,000 

Unclassified 30,000 5,000 15.6 19,000 1,000 3.5 -11,000 

Gender 

Male 1,803,000 450,000 24.9 1,934,000 463,000 24.0 131,000 

Female 3,376,000 264,000 7.8 3,786,000 287,000 7.6 410,000 

Race/ethnicity 

White 2,484,000 332,000 13.4 2,648,000 356,000 13.4 164,000 

Black 1,281,000 168,000 13.1 1,353,000 139,000 10.3 72,000 

Hispanic 922,000 126,000 13.6 1,166,000 156,000 13.4 244,000 

Asian 227,000 48,000 21.1 277,000 63,000 22.6 50,000 

Othera 266,000 40,000 15.2 276,000 37,000 13.4 10,000 

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

— 124 —
 
Table F-2. —Total number of Pell Grant recipients and the number and percentage of them who were in STEM majors, by student a

Table F-2.—characteristics: 2003–04 and 2007–08—Continued 

2003–04 2007–08 

All Pell Grant All Pell Grant 

Change bet

STEM majors STEM majors 

Percent Percent 

All Pell of all Pell All Pell of all Pell All Pe

Grant Grant Grant Grant Gran

Student and under- under- under- under- under

institutional characteristics graduates Total graduates graduates Total graduates graduate

Dependency status 

Dependent 2,166,000 354,000 16.3 2,410,000 379,000 15.7 244,000 Independent 3,014,000 360,000 12.0 3,309,000 371,000 11.2 295,000 

Total income level 

Dependent 

Less than $30,000 1,408,000 229,000 16.3 1,458,000 225,000 15.4 50,000 $30,000–$59,999 722,000 117,000 16.3 933,000 152,000 16.3 211,00

$60,000–$99,999 36,000 7,000 19.1 20,000 2,000 12.4 -16,00

Independent 

Less than $10,000 1,200,000 160,000 13.4 1,322,000 175,000 13.3 122,00$10,000–$29,999 1,389,000 150,000 10.8 1,418,000 142,000 10.0 29,000 

$30,000 or more 424,000 50,000 11.8 569,000 54,000 9.5 145,000 

Grade point average 

Less than 3.00 2,550,000 368,000 14.4 2,755,000 359,000 13.0 206,000 3.00 or more 2,628,000 346,000 13.2 2,944,000 389,000 13.2 316,00

* Indicates that the change was statistically significant at the .05 level.a “Other” includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, more than one race, and other.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 and 2007–08 National Postsecondary Student Aid Studi

— 125 —
 
Table F-3. —Total number of beginning postsecondary students at four- and two-year institutions who were recent high school gra

Table F-3.—the percentage of them who were Pell Grant recipients, by student and institutional characteristics: 2003–04 and 2007Student and institutional characteristics 

2003–04 

Beginning postsecondary students 

at four- and two-year institutions 

who were recent 

high school graduates 

Pell Grant recipients 

Percent 

of all 

Total Total BPS 

2007–08 

Beginning postsecondary students 

at four- and two-year institutions 

who were recent 

high school graduates 

Pell Grant recipients 

Percent 

of all 

Total Total BPS 

Change betwe

Beginning p

at four- and 

wh

high s

Total 

Perc

Total increa

 Total 

Type of institution 

Public four-year Private nonprofit four-year Public two-year Private for-profit Other 

Gender 

Male Female 

Race/ethnicity 

White Black Hispanic Asian Othera 

Dependency status 

Dependent Independent 

2,270,000 

879,000 

449,000 

819,000 

107,000 

16,000 

1,032,000 

1,239,000 

1,527,000 

233,000 

274,000 

123,000 

114,000 

2,189,000 

81,000 

642,000 

228,000 

124,000 

205,000 

76,000 

10,000 

268,000 

374,000 

303,000 

135,000 

127,000 

40,000 

36,000 

603,000 

39,000 

28.3 

25.9 

27.5 

25.0 

70.7 

62.0 

26.0 

30.2 

19.9 

58.2 

46.3 

33.0 

31.9 

27.5 

48.5 

2,883,000 

1,081,000 

528,000 

1,175,000 

96,000 

4,000 

1,353,000 

1,531,000 

1,841,000 

329,000 

420,000 

160,000 

133,000 

2,764,000 

119,000 

751,000 

278,000 

114,000 

299,000 

59,000 

1,000 

308,000 

443,000 

327,000 

181,000 

167,000 

39,000 

37,000 

685,000 

66,000 

26.0 

25.8 

21.6 

25.4 

61.2 

40.0 

22.7 

29.0 

17.8 

55.2 

39.7 

24.3 

27.5 

24.8 54.9 

613,000 

202,000 

79,000 

356,000 

-11,000 

-12,000 

321,000 

292,000 

314,000 

96,000 

146,000 

37,000 

19,000 

575,000 

38,000 

2

2

1

4

-1

-7

322

4

53

1

24

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

— 126 —
 
Table F-3. —Total number of beginning postsecondary students at four- and two-year institutions who were recent high school gra

Table F-3.—the percentage of them who were Pell Grant recipients, by student and institutional characteristics: 2003–04 and 2007

Student and 

institutional characteristics 

2003–04 

Beginning postsecondary students 

at four- and two-year institutions 

who were recent 

high school graduates 

Pell Grant recipients 

Percent 

of all 

Total Total BPS 

2007–08 

Beginning postsecondary students 

at four- and two-year institutions 

who were recent 

high school graduates 

Pell Grant recipients 

Percent 

of all 

Total Total BPS 

Change betwe

Beginning p

at four- an

wh

high s

Total 

Perc

Total increa

Total income level 

Dependent 

Less than $30,000 $30,000–$59,999 $60,000–$99,999 $100,000 or more 

Independent 

Less than $10,000 $10,000–$29,999 

Rigor of high school 

 academic course-taking Completed higher than

 algebra II 

Two or more years of 

Mathematics Science Social studies English Foreign language 

Earned college-level credits 

while in high school 

448,000 

614,000 

665,000 

462,000 

38,000 

36,000 

1,377,000 

2,111,000 

2,188,000 

2,220,000 

2,243,000 

1,911,000 

797,000 

341,000 

250,000 

12,000 

0 

20,000 

19,000 

341,000 

590,000 

606,000 

622,000 

633,000 

505,000 

183,000 

76.1 

40.7 

1.8 0.0 

54.1 

52.0 

24.7 

28.0 

27.7 

28.0 

28.2 

26.4 

23.0 

532,000 

697,000 

757,000 779,000 

90,000 

21,000 

1,991,000 

2,751,000 

2,624,000 

2,784,000 

2,842,000 2,324,000 

1,119,000 

384,000 

296,000 

6,000 

0 

55,000 

10,000 

469,000 

707,000 

666,000 

718,000 

738,000 524,000 

244,000 

72.3 

42.4 

0.8 0.0 

61.2 

46.4 

23.5 

25.7 

25.4 

25.8 

26.0 22.6 

21.8 

84,000 

83,000 

92,000 

317,000 

52,000 

-15,000 

614,000 

640,000 

436,000 

564,000 

599,000 413,000 

322,000 

1

1

1

6

13

-4

43

1

2

2

2

4

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

— 127 —
 
Table F-3. —Total number of beginning postsecondary students at four- and two-year institutions who were recent high school gra

Table F-3.—the percentage of them who were Pell Grant recipients, by student and institutional characteristics: 2003–04 and 2007

2003–04 2007–08 Change betwe

Beginning postsecondary students Beginning postsecondary students Beginning p

at four- and two-year institutions at four- and two-year institutions at four- and 

who were recent who were recent wh

high school graduates high school graduates high s

Pell Grant recipients Pell Grant recipients Total 

Percent Percent 

Student and of all of all Perc

institutional characteristics Total Total BPS Total Total BPS Total increa

High school curriculum rigor 

Met ACG requirements 1,412,000 369,000 26.1 1,811,000 479,000 26.4 399,000 2Did not meet ACG requirements 858,000 273,000 31.8 1,072,000 272,000 25.4 214,000 2

High school grade 

 point average Less than 3.0 586,000 194,000 33.1 811,000 264,000 32.5 225,000 33.0 or more 1,584,000 417,000 26.3 2,072,000 487,000 23.5 488,000 3

College (cumulative) grade 

 point average Less than 3.00 1,078,000 332,000 30.8 1,479,000 436,000 29.5 401,000 33.00 or more 1,189,000 310,000 26.1 1,392,000 313,000 22.5 203,000 1

— Not applicable.* Indicates that the change was statistically significant at the .05 level.a “Other” includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, more than one race, and other.

NOTE: High school graduates refers to those who graduated from high school in 2003 for BPS:06 and in 2007 for NPSAS:08 and who were age 23 o

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Study (BPS:04/06) and 2007–

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:08).

— 128 —
 
 

 

 

APPENDIX G 

Program Participation, Department of Education 

Goals, and Estimates of Eligibility 

This appendix compares actual participation in the ACG and National SMART Grant programs 

with Department goals and estimates of eligibility. Participation rates were well below the targets 

originally set by the Department of Education, and also below estimates of the numbers that 

might be eligible based on analysis of survey data from nationally representative samples of 

postsecondary students. However, eligibility criteria for the grant programs are very specific and 

impossible to match exactly to these data. Therefore, these estimates of eligibility are likely to 

overstate actual eligibility somewhat. 

Because these grants are limited to Pell Grant recipients, the number of students eligible for them 

is sensitive to changes in Pell Grant eligibility. Therefore, goals and assessments of program 

success might best be tied to the percentage of Pell Grant recipients who receive grants rather 

than simply the number of awards. 

Program Participation 

Participation during the first two years of the programs was as follows: 

 ACGs

 2006–07 2007–08 

 Grants 

 National SMART 

2006–07 2007–08 

Number of awards 

Percent of first- and second- 

 year Pell Grant recipients 

 

Percent of third- and fourth- 

 year Pell Grant recipients 

301,700 

10.0 

— 

398,700 

11.8 

— 

62,400 

— 

5.2 

65,400 

— 

5.1 

—Not applicable.
 

SOURCE: Appendix Table D-2 and Choy et al. 2009, Appendix Table E-2. 

The 33 percent increase in the number of ACG awards in the second year reflects, in part, a 13 

percent increase in the number of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients. The modest
 

— 129 —
 
 

 

APPENDIX G. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

GOALS, AND ESTIMATES OF ELIGIBILITY 
 

increase in the number of National SMART Grant awards reflects, in part, the addition of new 

eligible majors, which accounted for 1,800 new awards, and a 7 percent increase in the number 

of third- and fourth-year Pell recipients (see Chapter 3 for more detail). 

Department of Education Goals 

The Department’s FY 2009 Performance Budget contains three strategic goals, one of which 

calls for increasing the academic achievement of high school students.33 One of the objectives 

associated with this goal is to increase the proportion of high school students taking a rigorous 

curriculum, and one of the strategies is to “Leverage the Academic Competitiveness Grant 

Program, rewarding high school students who increase the rigor of their studies.” One of the 

performance measures is the percentage of low-income students who qualify for ACGs. The 

targets for this measure were set as follows: 

2006–07 35 percent 

2007–08 42 percent 

2008–09 49 percent 

2009–10 56 percent 

2010–11 63 percent 

As indicated above, actual participation rates for the first two years of the program were lower 

than the targets. Following the first year, the Department set a goal of doubling the number of 

ACG awards by 2010–11. In conjunction with this goal, the Department asked states to promote 

the participation of low-income students in rigorous courses (especially those that prepare them 

for National SMART Grant–eligible majors) and to support efforts to increase program 

34 awareness.

Estimates of Eligibility 

Chapter 5 of the report on the first year of the ACG and National SMART Grant programs (U.S. 

Department of Education 2009) presents baseline information on the number of students who 

would have been eligible for these grants had they existed in 2003–04. This information can be 

used as context for interpreting data on actual participation. 

Academic Competitiveness Grants 

Data from the Beginning Postsecondary Longitudinal Study (BPS)—based on a nationally 

representative sample of students enrolling in postsecondary education for the first time in 

33 Available at: http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2009plan/fy09perfplan.pdf (accessed July, 2010). The other 

two goals address bringing students up to grade level in reading and mathematics and ensuring access, affordability,
 

and accountability in higher education.

34 http://www.ed.gov/programs/smart/performance.html (accessed July, 2010).
 

— 130 —
 
 

 

APPENDIX G. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

GOALS, AND ESTIMATES OF ELIGIBILITY 
 

2003–04—suggest that approximately 282,000 first-year students would have been eligible for 

an ACG had the program existed at that time (Table G-1). This is likely an overestimate, 

however, because data on the courses that students took in high school includes only the number 

of courses in each field (English, mathematics, etc.), not the level. As the table indicates, barely 

half of the students meeting all of the other criteria also met the academic requirements. BPS 

data do not allow estimates of the number of second-year students who might have been eligible. 

Table G-1. —Beginning postsecondary students who met various ACG requirements: 2003–04 

Beginning postsecondary students who were 

recent high school graduates in degree programsa 2003–04 

Total number 2,129,800 

Percent who: 

Were U.S. citizens 96.0 

Received Pell Grants 29.2 

Enrolled full-time 83.6 

Completed the ED course-based high school curriculumb 60.0 

Percent who: 

Were U.S. citizens 96.0 

And received Pell Grants 27.5 

And attended full-time 24.4 

And completed the ED course-based curriculum 13.3 

Number of potential ACG recipients 282,300 

a Excluded from this table are beginning postsecondary students who graduated from high school before 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, 2003/04 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Studies (BPS:03/04).
 

For the purposes of estimating the required appropriations at the start of the program, the 

Department estimated that 310,000 first-year students and 110,000 second-year students would 

receive ACGs in 2006–07.35 The numbers of awards were expected to increase to 330,000 for 

first-year students and 130,000 for second-year students in 2007–08. 

National SMART Grants 

The 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), based on a nationally 

representative sample of all postsecondary students, can be used to estimate the number of 

students who would have been eligible for National SMART Grants. These data suggest that 

35 Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 127 (Monday, July 3, 2006/Rules and Regulations). 

— 131 —
 
APPENDIX G. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

GOALS, AND ESTIMATES OF ELIGIBILITY 

approximately 80,000 students would have been eligible for a National SMART Grant had the 

program existed then, although it was not possible to match the NPSAS major codes exactly to 

the National SMART Grant–eligible majors. 

These numbers match the estimates made by the Department at the start of the program: 40,000 

third-year students and 40,000 fourth-year students in both 2006–07 and 2007–08. 

— 132 —
 
APPENDIX H 

History of the ACG and National SMART Grant 

Programs 

 

— 133 —
APPENDIX H. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART 

GRANT PROGRAMS

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

Feb. 1, 2006. Congress passes the Higher Education An eligible student may receive an 

Effective as of July 1, 

2006, for the 2006–

07 academic year. 

Reconciliation Act of 2005 as part of the 

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xp

d?bill=s109-1932 

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. 

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.xp

d?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 

— 134 —
APPENDIX H. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART 

GRANT PROGRAMS

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

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. 

Corrects loan limits on page 7 of the GEN06-02 attachment. 

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

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. 

The Department explains the process for 

administering grants to institutions of higher 

education through a letter posted on the 

Department’s website. 

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

GEN0604.html 

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/attachme

nts/GEN0605.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/competitiv

eness/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/200

6/05/05022006.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 majors eligible for the National 

SMART Grants for the 2006–07 award 

year. 

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

GEN0606.html 

The Department announces guidelines on 

how students will qualify as having 

successfully completed a rigorous 

secondary school 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 

— 135 —
APPENDIX H. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART 

GRANT PROGRAMS

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

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 when 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/attachme

nts/GEN0610.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/200

6/06/06212006.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/competitiv

eness/ac-smart2.html 

Late June 2006 States, colleges, and students will receive 

notice of programs that have been 

— 136 —
APPENDIX H. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART 

GRANT PROGRAMS

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

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 e-mail and regular 

mail that they should submit additional 

information to the Department to determine 

ACG eligibility. 

July 3, 2006 Interim Final Regulations are posted in the The secretary amends Title 34 to establish 

Effective Aug. 2, 

2006, for the 2006–

07 academic year. 

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

comments are requested on or before Aug. 

17, 2006. 

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

roprule/2006-3/070306a.html 

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 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. 

— 137 —
APPENDIX H. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART 

GRANT PROGRAMS

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

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 Nov. 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/p

roprule/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 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. 

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 

— 138 —
APPENDIX H. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART 

GRANT PROGRAMS

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

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

nrule/2006-4/110106a.html 

and received 80 comments. The ACG 

regulations respond to the growing number 

of states and local education 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/hear

ulemaking/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 

Transfer students 

Course work 

Timing of calculation 

Eligibility for disbursement. 

Interpretation of previously enrolled for 

student eligibility 

College credits earned in high school 

Treatment of AP/IB courses and 

credits. 

Majors 

Additional majors and CIP codes 

Institutional flexibility in determining 

majors. 

Clarify successful completion of rigorous 

secondary school program of study; 

— 139 —
APPENDIX H. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART 

GRANT PROGRAMS

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

Departmental monitoring disbursements of 

awards. 

March 5–7, 2007 ACG/National SMART Negotiated 

Rulemaking, Second Session 

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

ulemaking/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.

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/p

roprule/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. 

Additional eligible majors include: Food 

Science, Food Technology and Processing, 

Environmental Science, Fishing and 

Fisheries Sciences and Management, 

Forest Sciences and Biology, Wood 

— 140 —
APPENDIX H. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART 

GRANT PROGRAMS

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

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

GEN0706.html 

Science and Wood Products/Pulp and 

Paper Technology, Wildlife and Wildlands 

Science and Management, Biopsychology, 

Nutrition Sciences, and 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/200

7/10/10262007.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 

Office of Postsecondary Education, Year 1 

results by state: 

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

ance.html 

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 Final Regulations published in Federal The secretary amends the regulations for 

Effective July 1, 

2008. 

[Institutions that 

Register (Vol. 72, No. 208). 

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

finrule/2007-4/102907a.html 

the ACG and National SMART Grant 

programs to reduce administrative burden 

for program participants and to clarify 

program requirements. 

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.] 

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

the assistant secretary for postsecondary 

education, on the process for adding 

eligible majors for 2008–09. 

Explains the process by which 

postsecondary institutions can request 

additional majors to be included on 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 H.R. 5715 passed by Senate 

http://thomas.loc.gov 

— 141 —
APPENDIX H. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART 

GRANT PROGRAMS

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

May 7, 2008 

Effective Jan. 1, 2009 

 H.R. 5715 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 fulltime 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 degreegranting 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 course work. 

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 H.R. 5715. 

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

the principal deputy assistant secretary, on 

the list of eligible majors for 2008–09. 

The list of eligible academic majors as 

published in Dear Colleague letter GEN-07-

06 carry over unchanged to the 2008–09 

award year. 

Aug. 1, 2008 The Department of Education’s Office of 

Inspector General publishes its Audit of the 

Department’s Process for Disbursing 

Academic Competitiveness Grants and 

National Science and Mathematics Access 

to Retain Talent Grants. 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/audi

treports/fy2008/a19h0011.pdf 

— 142 —
APPENDIX H. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART 

GRANT PROGRAMS

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

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 

program-related 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. 

Jan. 19, 2009 The Department of Education releases the 

Academic Competitiveness and National 

SMART Grant Programs: First-Year 

Lessons Learned report. 

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/ac

smartyear1/index.html 

March 25, 2009 The Government Accountability Office 

releases its Recent Changes to Eligibility 

Requirements and Additional Efforts to 

Promote Awareness Could Increase 

Academic Competitiveness and SMART 

Grant Participation report. 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-343 

March 26, 2009 Dear Colleague letter (GEN-09-03) from 

the assistant secretary designee on the 

process of adding eligible majors for 2009–

10 National SMART Grants. 

Explains the process by which 

postsecondary institutions can request 

additional majors or add a liberal arts 

curriculum to the list of eligible majors for 

the National SMART Grant program for the 

2009–10 award year. 

May 1, 2009 Interim Final Rules are posted in the 

Federal Register. Comments are requested 

by June 1, 2009. 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-

10094.pdf 

May 12, 2009 The Department’s Office of Postsecondary 

Education releases its Academic 

Competitiveness Grant and National 

SMART Grant Programs End-of-Year 

Report for the 2007–08 academic year. 

http://www.ed.gov/finaid/prof/resources/dat

a/pell-2007-08/ac-smart-eoy-07-08.pdf 

June 1, 2009 Comments on Interim Final Rules due to 

the Department. Two stakeholder 

organizations responded. 

June 30, 2009 Correction to Interim Final Rules published 

in the Federal Register. 

— 143 —
APPENDIX H. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART 

GRANT PROGRAMS

Date Passed or Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

July 7, 2009 Dear Colleague letter (GEN-09-09) from The list of eligible academic majors 

the assistant secretary designee on the list and two liberal arts curricula newly 

of eligible majors for 2009–10. designated for National SMART Grant 

eligibility in 2009–10 award year. 

Nov. 23, 2009 Publication of the Final Regulations in the Implements H.R. 5715 (see May 7, 

Federal Register (Vol. 74, No. 224). 2008) and H.R. 4137 (see Aug. 14, 

2009). 

April 2, 2010 Dear Colleague letter (GEN-10-04) from The process by which institutions can 

the assistant secretary designee on the request that an additional major be 

process of adding eligible majors for 2010– included for 2010–11. 

11 National SMART Grants. 

— 144 —
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