 |
...as a professional financial aid
administrator, it is my strong belief that our federal education policy should not be used to enforce
domestic policy objectives such as Selective Service registration or drug policy. |
Features ...
"Another Question for the FAFSA?"
Letter opposing HR 866
by Sam Collie, Portland State University
Dear Representative ________________________:
I am writing to oppose HR 866, a bill that would add yet another layer of federal law and regulatory
confusion to the process of applying for federal financial aid programs.
Federal aid programs have a long history of allowing students to "pull themselves up by their own boot-straps"
by providing access to funding for post secondary education. In 1999-2000, 10.6 million students
benefited from over $47.6 billion in federal aid funds (counting specially directed aid such as military and
veteran's programs for example). In that same year, those students also benefited from an additional $20.7
billion in state grant, non-federal loan, and institution grant programs. Additionally in 1999-2000, students
received an average aid package of $6,423 with loan aid making up an average of $3,722 and grant
aid an average of $2,552.
I quote the numbers above for good reason. The federal aid system serves millions of students who
must navigate a system comprised of several steps between application to receipt of funds. The federal
application system has appropriate screening in place - the Department of Education's FAFSA processor
screens out students who are ineligible for federal aid based upon previous loan defaults, grant repayment
issues, and ineligible citizenship status. In all of these cases, postsecondary institutions must follow-up
with students to determine their eligibility status. Some of these students regain eligibility after this
follow-up; some of them do not. I believe that these screening issues are appropriate to a system designed
to help both eligible and needy students.
In recent years, we have seen the federal aid application system add new screening mechanisms designed
to affect domestic social policy and deny access to federal aid program to other groups of students. For
example, students who have not registered for Selective Service and, most recently, students who have been
convicted of drug related violations of federal or state law. As a veteran myself, I have strong personal
feelings about citizens who fail to register for selective service. However, as a professional financial aid
administrator, it is my strong belief that our federal education policy should not be used to enforce
domestic policy objectives such as Selective Service registration or drug policy. In my experience, very few
students who have applied for financial aid and who also must have either a Selective Service verification
or a school based follow-up for the current drug conviction question are determined to be ineligible.
Viewed on a national level, the costs and added complication far outweigh the benefits of the screening
for these issues.
Now, another attempt to affect social policy change collides with education policy: HR 866, the Subsidy
Termination for Overdue payments (STOP) Act. As a concerned citizen, I certainly agree that "dead-beat"
parents should pay child support. As a financial aid administrator with over 20 years in higher education,
local and federal government service, I foresee costs that outweigh benefits. I also have to ask the question:
"How many potential students who cannot afford child support payments because they are in low paying
occupations might be able to meet this obligation if they can enter postsecondary education programs and
exit with better career or occupational opportunities?"
I hope that you will vote "NO" on HR 866.
Sincerely,
Samuel Collie
Oregon Association of Financial Aid Administrators |
|
|
