Comments on ACG SMART Grants
August 17, 2006
Mr. Fred Sellers
U.S. Department of Education
P.O. Box 33184
Washington, DC 20033-3184
Dear Mr. Sellers,
We write on behalf of the members of the American Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) and the National
Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) to submit comments
on the Interim Final Regulations published in the July 3, 2006 Federal
Register to implement the Academic Competitiveness Grant and Science and
Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) Grant programs.
Founded in 1910, AACRAO is a nonprofit, voluntary, professional
association of more than 10,000 higher education admissions and
registration professionals who represent approximately 2,500
institutions in more than 30 countries.
The National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC),
founded in 1937, is an organization of more than 9,000 professionals
from around the world dedicated to serving students as they make choices
about pursuing postsecondary education.
Members of AACRAO and NACAC recognize the extraordinary challenges
involved in the rapid implementation of these programs. They appreciate
that a number of the programs' most fundamental shortcomings are due to
the highly imperfect underlying statute. They also understand that the
first year of implementation for any program—let alone programs as
unprecedented in their policy goals, eligibility criteria and data needs
as these—will involve obstacles and difficulties. The members of our
two associations—high school guidance counselors, admissions officers,
registrars, and financial aid administratorsrepresent the front-line
professionals charged with making these programs work for students. We
assure you that our members are committed to doing all they can to
assist you with a successful launch of these programs.
We applaud the Department for an excellent job of keeping institutions
informed of its plans and thank you and your senior staff for actively
engaging the community in attempting to deal with some of the
intractable problems of the legislative framework. The Department's
valiant efforts have, in fact, resolved some of the most daunting
challenges associated with implementing the programs. However, we regret
to see that the regulations also make interpretive choices that
exacerbate the problems of an already flawed statute. Several of these
choices are so ill-advised that we believe the programs will simply not
work if the Department continues to insist on them. In addition, there
are areas that require clarification and improvement.
Definition of Academic Year Is Unworkable
The first, and most pressing, problem with the July 3 regulations is
their unworkable use of the Title IV statutory definition of academic
year for purposes of handling grade-level progression for ACG and SMART
Grants. In our conversations with your senior staff, we have explained
in some detail the havoc this odd choice (i.e., 24 credit hours or
equivalent earned over 30 weeks) would wreak on campuses. We believe the
Department itself would be hard-pressed to comprehend, let alone
explain, grade-level progression under the proposed definition,
especially as it would relate to students' standing in their programs
and their eligibility for other aid programs. We can report to you that
our members are bewildered by the confusing interplay of definitions,
and are gravely concerned about the chaos that the definition would
cause. We believe that the Department has other regulatory options under
the statute. For purposes of ACG and SMART Grants, the only
operationally workable definition of academic year would be one based on
credit accumulation and students' standing in their program based on
institutional policy. We believe such a definition would be consistent
with both the statute and the Department's other regulatory
pronouncements.
Eight-term Transcript Verification Is Unmanageable
A second operational requirement of immediate concern to our members is the regulations' requirement that institutions analyze
post-graduation
high school transcripts to document the students' completion of
rigorous program of study. As you are well-aware, the admissions process
at U.S. institutions typically begins
and ends in advance of
high school graduation for traditional students. The timing of the
admissions process, therefore, does not accommodate the practice the
Department is seeking to impose on institutions. In fact, some high
schools do not even produce completed transcripts until late in the
summer. The transcripts that institutions review are six- or seven-term
high school transcripts that, in the vast majority of cases, serve as
perfect
predictors of course-by-course completion. We believe that the
Department can rely on these transcripts just as securely as
institutions do for their own purposes. In those rare cases when a
student's performance deviates from the partial transcript in a material
way, institutions withdraw their offer of admission. Thus, the
Department would be protected by the fact that the student is either not
allowed to enroll or would be required to withdraw.
Mandatory Institutional Participation
In section 691.7, the regulations mandate that institutions that offer
one or more eligible programs for ACG or SMART Grant purposes and that
participate in the Federal Pell Grant program must also participate in
the ACG or SMART Grant program. The preamble also indicates that a
corresponding change is being made to participation requirements for the
Pell Grant program. We strongly object to the Department's attempt to
bundle participation in unrelated programs and force institutions to
make an all-or-nothing choice with regard to program participation.
Nothing in current law mandates participation in one aid program as
condition of participation in another, and the matter is rightly left to
the discretion of institutions, a practice that we urge the Department
to continue. Institutions have every incentive to enable their students
to access all the available funds for which they might be eligible. At
the same time, institutions have a responsibility and a corresponding
right to only participate in programs that they can administer
efficiently and in an accountable manner. It is conceivable that an
institution may conclude that the regulatory burdens associated with the
programs far outweigh their benefits, or that an institution decides
that it cannot administer the programs. It is unclear as to why the
Department would wish to use the threat of expulsion from a different
and unrelated program to force such an institution to participate
against their own best judgment. The inclusion of this language may be
construed by some as reflecting the Department's concern that the
ACG/SMART Grant regulations are likely to be so onerous as to cause
institutions to forgo participation in the programs altogether. If this
is, in fact, a concern, the best remedy would be to promulgate
reasonable regulations not to issue an edict that forces compliance with
unreasonable ones.
The Regulations Confuse the IB Diploma Program and IB Courses
We endorse ACG's substantive goal, which is to provide an incentive for
states to steer more students into rigorous secondary school programs.
We commend the Department for attempting to provide several options for
students to establish the eligibility of their programs in the
regulations. There is, however, one remaining problem that we would like
to bring to your attention.
Subsection 691.16(d)(4) seems to confuse the International Baccalaureate
Diploma
Program with stand-alone IB courses. We concur with what appears to be
the intent of the regulations, i.e., that a score of "4" or higher on at
least two (we assume Standard Level) IB courses would be construed to
qualify their curriculum as rigorous. But, merely correcting the
infelicitous formulation will not suffice unless the regulations also
separately recognize the IB Diploma Program as rigorous. The IB Diploma
Program is an exceptionally demanding curriculum that enrolls the most
highly motivated secondary students. It is, in the minds of the vast
majority of admissions officials,
the most rigorous nationally
available high school curriculum. The Secretary's failure to recognize
this important curriculum, for which many colleges and universities
offer up to one full year of collegiate-level credit, would be a glaring
mistake since most of the Secretarially recognized curricula are likely
to be
less rigorous. Accordingly, we propose that subsection (4)
be re-drafted, and a new subsection (5) be added, with the subsequent
subsections renumbered as follows:
(4) The International Baccalaureate Diploma Program.
(5) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at least
two International Baccalaureate courses sponsored by the International
Baccalaureate Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, and receives a score of
"4" or higher on the examination for at least two of those courses.
The Regulations Inappropriately Restrict ACG/SMART Eligibility to Pell Recipients
In restricting eligibility for ACG and SMART Grants to Pell
recipients (as opposed to Pell-
eligible
students), the Department is exceeding its statutory authority and is
arbitrarily denying a federal entitlement to otherwise eligible
students. Nothing in the statute supports or authorizes the Department's
added requirement that ACG/SMART Grant recipients actually receive a
Pell grant. In light of the Department's decision to limit the amount of
the award to unmet need, it is difficult to see the rationale for this
additional restriction. For Pell-eligible students who have already used
their Pell award, the receipt of an ACG or SMART Grant would be of
critical importance. The very students, therefore, that would most
benefit from these programs are arbitrarily denied an award.
SMART Grant Eligibility Based on Major
We are concerned to learn that the CIP codes published thus far fail to
recognize a number of academic disciplines that would, by every
definition, fit the major field eligibility criteria for SMART Grants.
Some scientific fields appear to have been omitted, we assume
inadvertently. In addition, it appears that the CIP codes for eligible
languages may be much too narrowly identified for purposes of available
undergraduate majors. We urge the Department to review its published CIP
list to ensure that all intended major fields are correctly identified.
We are also very concerned about the addition of a regulatory
requirement in 691.15(c)(2)(ii) that even a student who has formally
declared a major must enroll "in the courses necessary both to complete
the degree program and to fulfill the requirements of the intended
eligible field." The statute clearly indicates that declaring an
eligible major satisfies the major field requirement for SMART Grants.
The Department's additional requirement, which seems to mandate a more
granular course-by-course analysis on a term-by-term basis, is
susceptible to numerous conflicting interpretations. There is no
absolutely rigid paradigmatic course schedule against which registrars
can check SMART Grant recipients' coursework. Any student who has,
pursuant to institutional policies, declared a major is, ipso facto¸
enrolled in coursework that satisfies that institution's and that
major's requirements. Registrars can certainly identify students who
have met the institutional and departmental criteria for declaring a
major. The Department assumes that the registrar can, in addition to
this, also confirm that the student is taking the "right kinds of
courses," a fuzzy and operationally meaningless construct. Would an
Electrical Engineering student that drops Chemistry suddenly be deemed
not to be enrolled in the right coursework even if institutional
policies don't automatically expel the student from the program?
We believe this requirement will be confusing for campus officials
because it is unclear as to what it is that the Department is demanding.
While retaining it for those students who are unable to declare a major
because of institutional policies makes sense, applying it to students
who have, in fact, declared a major is inappropriate and unnecessary.
Accordingly, we propose that 691.15(c)(2)(ii) be re-designated as 691.15
(c)(2)(i)(B)(3) so as to only apply to students unable to declare an
eligible major.
Grade Point Average (GPA) Reference Appears to Create New Federal Definition
Both ACG and SMART Grants include references to GPA as part of their
respective eligibility criteria. The Department wisely avoids
micro-management of academic matters by deferring to institutional
policies with regard to GPA calculations except in two cases.
First, in 690.15(e), recognizing that transfer students do not have a
GPA at the receiving institution, the regulations define a transfer GPA
as the average of grades in courses for which a receiving institution
grants academic credit. While this is an unusual concept at most
institutions and does involve a new federally mandated calculation, the
requirement makes eminent sense because it enables transfer students to
establish GPA-based eligibility and because the regulations indicate
that institutions can revert to their own standard grading policies for
second and subsequent payment periods.
Second, in 691.15(c)(3), the regulations reference a "cumulative GPA
through the most recently completed payment period of at least 3.0 or
higher on a 4.0 scale, or the equivalent, consistent with other
institutional measures for academic and title IV, HEA program purposes,
in the student's eligible program
[emphasis ours]." This language is ambiguous because it is not obvious
whether it describes the cumulative GPA, the "major GPA", or a new
calculated field that consists of the weighted average of a different
subset of the students' coursework. If the Department intends to base
student eligibility on cumulative GPA, then the italicized language
should be deleted. If the Department is seeking to base academic
eligibility on some subset of the students' coursework, then much more
will be needed to properly define what is meant here. Many institutions
do not currently calculate separate "Major GPA" or "Program GPA" for
their students. Even where they are used, the terms can have varying
meanings. At some institutions, all coursework that counts toward the
major is factored into the calculation, while at others only specific
courses listed in each student's matriculation-year bulletin are
counted. We strongly urge the Department to delete the italicized
language pending further discussions with the community to better
understand what the substantive goals of the GPA threshold are and how
best to articulate them.
As a minor edit, we also suggest that "at least 3.0 or higher" is a
redundant formulation that can just as easily be expressed as either "at
least 3.0" or as "3.0 or higher".
We thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns and suggestions,
and stand ready to work with you in launching these programs.
Sincerely,
Jerome H. Sullivan
Executive Director
AACRAO
Joyce E. Smith
Executive Director
NACAC