The Department of Education on Monday held the first of three days of negotiating rulemaking on the ACG and SMART Grant programs.

This round of negotiated rulemaking brought together representatives of the various stakeholders in the ACG and SMART programs, including state education agencies, postsecondary institutions, students, and other associations to offer advice and feedback on the current regulations. The Department will then incorporate that input into proposed regulatory language that it will make available for any interested party to comment on. The final ACG and SMART Grant regulations will apply to the program in the 2008-09 academic year.

At Monday's meeting negotiators discussed a variety of issues including rigorous secondary school programs and who defines rigor, mandatory institutional participation in ACG and SMART Grant programs, and eligibility of certificate programs for ACG.

Who Defines Rigor

The debate on rigorous high school curriculums centered on trying to balance states' right to define rigor with ED's authority to recognize rigorous programs, with an emphasis on creating an equitable student aid program. Several negotiators said that the spirit of the legislation was to allow states to define rigor so there would be no federal intervention in curriculum development or federal definition of rigor. However, some negotiators countered that this system was inherently unequal, because states' definition of rigorous would never be consistent. Some states will graduate a greater percentage of students from rigorous courses simply because the definition of rigor differs. Some negotiators stressed that this could be unfair for students who take what one state considers a rigorous high school curriculum in a state that does not consider it rigorous.

Despite this concern, negotiators generally said that they did not want the Secretary of Education defining a national standard for rigor. Some also noted that the creation of ACG was forcing states and schools to define rigor and ensure that these types of courses are available to any high school student who wants to take it. States are still in a difficult spot trying to implement the systems needed to make students eligible for ACG, but they are moving in that direction, one negotiator noted.

Mandatory Participation

Another discussion was held on whether the Department should force all institutions that participate in the Pell Grant program to participate in the ACG and SMART Grant programs.

One negotiator said that the Department should allow small institutions with a overwhelming majority of students who are not eligible for ACG to opt out of the program. She argued that some small institutions had only one degree program with very few students and only a fraction of this population might be eligible for ACG awards. For these institutions the administrative costs associated with ACG far outweighed the possible benefits of the program, she contended.

This argument did not find much support among other negotiators who expressed opposing opinions. One said that if such a small portion of students were eligible it shouldn't cost much to administer the program to so few students. Another asserted that any student who has a chance to get an ACG should be given that opportunity. Others said that allowing some institutions to opt out of ACG could make the college selection process more complicated for students who would assume that the institution they select would not dictate if they can get federal ACG funding. Another negotiator pointed out, however, that even though his staff was very proficient in assessing eligibility, it still took 20 man hours to go through 58 self-identified applicants to find their first eligible student.

Certificate Programs

The negotiators also discussed whether students in certificate programs should be eligible for ACG awards; congressional intent seemed unclear on this point. Some said that many students start in certificate programs and then moved on to degree programs. They also stressed that awarding ACG to certificate program students was in the spirit of the bill because many of these certificates led to nursing, firefighting and law enforcement careers and that more and more technology-based industries needed employees trained in certificate programs. A few negotiators differentiated between certificate programs that ended with that credential and articulation programs that were designed to encourage students to go on to degree programs.

Department officials noted that one reason certificate programs were excluded from ACG eligibility was because of the cost associated with it. Negotiators argued that this was not a valid argument because only a fraction of certificate program students would likely qualify. Despite low numbers, however, some negotiators felt that those who would be eligible should be rewarded for their efforts in high school and encouraged to continue their education.

Remaining Topics

Over the next two days the negotiated rulemaking session will gather advice and opinion on the following topics:

1. Requirement that ACG/SMART Grants be disbursed at the same institution when awarded within the same term

2. Grade point average
   • Transfer students
   • Coursework
   • Timing of calculation
   • Eligibility for disbursement

3. Interpretation of "previously" enrolled for first-year ACG eligibility
   • College credits earned while in high school, including dual-credit programs and early college programs
   • Treatment of AP/IB courses

4. Majors
   • Additional majors and CIP codes
   • Institutional flexibility in determining majors

5. Clarify what successful completion of rigorous secondary school program of study means

6. Departmental monitoring of disbursements of student awards by academic year.

Future sessions will examine draft language for proposed amendments to the current ACG and SMART Grant regulations to implement changes that garner consensus.

By Haley Chitty
NASFAA Assistant Director for Communications

Posted 02/06/07 to www.NASFAA.org. Redistribution to non-NASFAA institutions is prohibited. Please submit Web Site questions or comments to Web@NASFAA.org.