Washington
The U.S. Department of Education awarded roughly $430-million in Academic Competitiveness and National Smart Grants in the 2006-7 academic year, far less than the $790-million it had expected to spend on the awards.
In all, roughly 300,000 freshmen and sophomores received Academic Competitiveness Grants of $750 and $1,300, respectively, and roughly 61,000 juniors and seniors received Smart Grants of up to $4,000 a year. Both grant programs supplement Pell Grants for low-income students.
The department blamed the lower-than-expected numbers on confusion about the programs' requirements and the dearth of low-income high-school graduates who had completed rigorous courses of study.
To qualify for Academic Competitiveness Grants, students must complete a "rigorous" program of study in high school, as defined by the Education Department.
Among recipients of Pell Grants, the number of students who got Academic Competitiveness Grants, known as "ACG," varied widely by state. Only 9 percent of Pell Grant recipients from Alaska and 10 percent from Arizona received the grants, compared with 39 percent from North Dakota and 37 percent from Nebraska. A majority of states fell in the 20 to 30 percent range, including New York and Texas, at 28 percent each.
The department said the percentages correlated generally with the rigor of each state's high-school education.
"We see in these data general relationships between proportions of low-income students getting ACG and states with high expectations for graduation," said Kristin D. Conklin, an adviser to the under secretary of education.
As an example, she cited Arkansas, which requires all of its high-school graduates to have completed a college-preparatory curriculum, and where 31 percent of Pell Grant recipients received the new awards.
The opposite case seemed to hold true in Alaska, where requirements for high-school graduation fall short of the "rigorous" standards established by the department. Ted Malone, the financial-aid director at the University of Alaska at Anchorage, said his state's secondary-school system had resisted efforts to establish mandatory curricula, in part because rural schools might not have the resources to offer all the required courses.
But there is no evidence that the pattern applied across the board, and some critics called the disparities among the states evidence of the programs' capriciousness.
"Chicken bones underground would have done just as effective a job of distributing this money," said Barmak Nassirian, an associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. "It's completely arbitrary."
The department said it is not worried that participation rates were lower than expected during the programs' first year. David Bergeron, director of policy and budget development in the department's Office of Postsecondary Education, said it is "not unusual" for new federal programs to get off to a slow start. He said the 2007 fiscal year's surplus would roll over to be used in future years.
"Look at some of the tax benefits that have been provided," he said. "It took a number of years to get to the place where everyone that could benefit got them."
Others said the low rate of participation was proof that the department had placed too many restrictions on the grants. To qualify for either of the awards, students must attend college full time, be U.S. citizens, and maintain a 3.0 grade-point average.
"They opened the funnel wide, and then they narrowed it substantially," said Edward M. Elmendorf, senior vice president for government relations and policy analysis at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. "No one should be surprised that it's difficult to get students into the pool."
