1 / 23

Options for Meeting Rigorous High School Program Requirement

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.

nishi
Download Presentation

Options for Meeting Rigorous High School Program Requirement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Academic Competitiveness and SMART Grant Programs:TheFirst YearStudent Financial Aid Research Network ConferencePhiladelphia, PAJune 2–4, 2011MPR Associates, Inc.andJBL Associates

  2. 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)

  3. Academic Competitiveness and SMART Grant Programs • Purposes • ACG • SMART • First Awards: 2006–07 academic year • Will end after 2010–11 unless reauthorized • Encourage low-income high school students to take challenging courses and thus increase their likelihood of going to college and succeeding • 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)

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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 low-income families • Limiting to students in “rigorous programs” expands federal role in high school policy making.

  8. ImplementationIssues 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. Data Issues: Participation in Year 1 (2006–07)

  16. 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)

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

More Related