Transcript No Slide Title

Academic Competitiveness and
SMART Grant Programs:
The First Year
Student Financial Aid
Research Network Conference
Philadelphia, PA
June 2–4, 2011
MPR Associates, Inc.
and
JBL Associates
Options for Meeting Rigorous High School
Program Requirement
 Participating in the State Scholars Initiative (SSI)
(22 states in 2006)
 Completing coursework option: 4 years of English; 3 years of
mathematics (including algebra I and higher); 3 years of
science (including at least 2 of biology, chemistry, physics);
3 years of social studies; and 1 year of a language other than
English
 Passing at least two AP courses (3+) or IB courses (4+)
 Completing an existing advance, honors, or other approved
program (40 states)
2
2
Academic Competitiveness and
SMART Grant Programs
 Purposes
– ACG
Encourage low-income high school students to take
challenging courses and thus increase their likelihood
of going to college and succeeding
– SMART Encourage students to pursue certain majors
considered in high demand in the global economy
(mathematics, science, engineering, technology, and
certain languages critical to the national interest)
 First Awards: 2006–07 academic year
 Will end after 2010–11 unless reauthorized
3
3
Academic Competitiveness and
SMART Grant Programs
 Grant amounts
– ACG
• $750 for 1st year; $1,300 for 2nd year
– SMART Grant
• $4,000 in each of 3rd and 4th years
 Eligibility criteria for either grant
– Qualify for a Pell Grant
– U.S. citizen
– Enroll full time
– Degree program at 2- or 4-year institution
4
4
Additional Eligibility Criteria
 ACG
– Recent high school graduate (for first year)
– Complete a rigorous high school program
– Earn a 3.0 GPA for first year to get grant renewed
 SMART Grant
– Major in eligible field
– Take course in that field each term
– Maintain 3.0 GPA
5
5
Study Goal and First-Year Activities
 Evaluate the impact of the ACG and SMART Grant programs
 First-year activities
– Examined implementation issues
– Assembled and compared information on rigorous high school
programs in each state
– Examined participation in the first year of the grant programs:
2006–07
– Used historical data to develop estimates of the numbers of
students who would have been eligible for the grants at various
times (had the grants existed then)
– Investigated state longitudinal data systems that tracked
students from secondary through postsecondary education
6
6
Initial Objections to New Programs
 Requiring recipients to meet minimum GPA to get
and keep awards fundamentally altered federal
government's historical approach to need-based aid
 Restricting access to full-time students in degree
programs limited availability to narrow slice of lowincome families
 Limiting to students in “rigorous programs” expands
federal role in high school policy making.
7
7
Implementation Issues
 Negotiated rulemaking sessions were held in winter and
spring of 2007.
 Since then, ED has responded to several of the
stakeholders’ concerns by modifying regulations where
possible
 Recent legislation (HR 5715) modified the program, thus
addressing some of the earlier concerns
8
8
Issues Raised During the First Year
 Purpose of program generally applauded
 Conception and design criticized:
– GPA requirement difficult for student aid office to verify
– Defining a rigorous high school program requirement poses
complex implementation problems
– Mandatory institutional participation was difficult in first
year because of confusion about requirements
– Restriction to students in academic programs excluded some
certificate students
9
9
Early Implementation Issues
 Minimum GPA requirement for sophomores, juniors,
and seniors
 Excluded students who are:
– Part-time
– Non-citizens
– Certificate-seeking
 Limited to students who complete a rigorous high
school program
10
10
Early Implementation Issues
 Definition of “academic year”
– Differs from definition used for other Title IV programs
– Based on credits accumulated and weeks of instruction
 Four-year high school transcript
– Colleges typically use 3 year/6–7 semester transcript
– Burden on community colleges and other open-access
institutions that do not generally collect high school
transcripts
11
11
HR 5715
 HR 5715 addresses these concerns:
– Definition of “academic year” changed to “year”
– Expands 5th year eligibility to SMART grant students enrolled
in 5-year programs
– Only states can define “rigorous secondary school program”
– Redirects surplus back into the ACG/NSG programs
12
12
HR 5715
 HR 5715 expands eligibility to students who are:
• Part-time
• Certificate-seeking (1–2 year programs)
• Non-citizens (permanent residents)
• Enrolled in SMART-equivalent courses at liberal arts
colleges that do not offer a SMART major
13
13
Some Remaining Concerns
 Full high school transcript is still required.
 GPA requirements
– Sophomores, juniors, and seniors must meet 3.0 GPA
requirement
– Students classified as 2nd year ACG recipients based on
AP/IB credits must still meet 3.0 GPA requirement
 SMART grant does not include all STEM majors
14
14
Data Issues:
Participation in Year 1 (2006–07)
ACG
SMART
15
Students
Institutions
Pell Grants
300,000
3,000
4.5 million
61,000
1,500
2.5 million
15
U.S. Department of Education Data
for 2006–07 on www.ed.gov
 ACG and SMART numbers by state
 Brief state profile:
– High school programs for ACG
– Top 5 colleges in number of awards
– Percent of Pell freshmen with ACG (26% national)
– Percent of recent high school graduates with ACG (5%)
 ED Goals: double the number in 5 years
 Issues and solutions (examples)
16
16
Evaluation Data Issues: Comparison Groups
 State: college location or student residence?
 Institution: campus or system? 2-year or 4-year?
 Students:
– Number of Pell Grants: total, by class level
– Number of high school graduates
– Number of college freshmen
– Number of BAs in SMART-eligible fields
17
17
Evaluation Data Sources
 Institution-level numbers (Pell, ACG, SMART)
 Student-level numbers (Pell grant data base)
 Survey data: NPSAS:08, BPS:09, B&B:09
– Augmented SMART sample
– New student interview items
18
18
Three-State Study: Overview
 Collected longitudinal student-level data from Florida,
Indiana, and Texas
 Intention
– Use of longitudinal student-level data provides more detail than
national survey data
– Provide state context
 Goal
– Collect detailed descriptive statistics on receipt and persistence
– Inferential statistics to establish a causal relationship between
receipt and student outcomes
19
19
Three-State Study: Complicating Factors
 Lack of a comparison group
 Difficulty in implementing a two-stage eligibility
process
 Changes in Pell Grant
 Changes in the economy (recession starting in
December 2007)
 Changes in ACG/National SMART Grant eligibility
requirements
 Changes in price of attendance and other
student aid programs
20
20
Three-State Study: Limitations
Mostly limited to the public sector
Data are often poorly edited because they are not used
Access to data; FERPA interpretation varies greatly across
states
Available data do not include key variables (grades, student
aid)
Difficult to link K-12 and postsecondary data systems
States put limits on the number or combination of variables
requested
Data systems designed around state priorities and may not
be able to answer the concerns of federal policymakers
21
21
Three-State Study: Time and Effort
• 1-2 year lag between when data are collected by the
states and when they are released to the public
• Coordinating collection with multiple agencies
• Data silos; enrollment and financial aid data collected and
warehoused separately, resulting in multiple files that
may or may not include the same students and have to be
matched
• Variables are little used by states, and therefore require
extensive editing and checking
• External requests have a low priority when state agency
staff are overworked
22
22
Three-State Study: Outcomes
 Descriptive data
– Findings consistent with national survey data
– Grants benefit students who are already more academically
prepared
– Recipients are more likely to attend a selective institution
– Recipients are more likely to persist into their second award year,
although a substantial number did not receive a second-year
award (did not meet eligibility requirements)
 Inferential data
– Quality and breadth of the data were too limited to make any
causal claims about the efficacy of these grants
23
23