Part 3 Of 4

Drugs And FAFSA

A QUESTION OF UNCERTAINTY

Background: This is the third of four weekly editorials on the
Solomon-Souder amendment to the Higher Education Act. The provision denies
federal financial aid for a period of time to those convicted of drug
possession or distribution. Congress is reauthorizing the act this year and
has the opportunity to repeal this law.

On the 2005-2006 Free Application for Federal Student Aid, it's Question
31: "Has the student ever been convicted of possessing or selling illegal
drugs?"

Since July of 1999, it has, at times, been Question 28 and Question 35.
Each time, the language has been changed. The question has been a constant
thorn in the U.S. Department of Education's side; year after year,
newspapers tell stories of financial aid applicants who didn't understand
how to properly fill out the question, much less what the consequences were.

In 2000, any one of the 9,587 students denied aid could have left the drug
question blank. The Department of Education under President Clinton did not
deny aid to the more than 279,000 students who did not answer the question
on their 2000-2001 FAFSAs.

The federal government did little in 2000 to tell students what their
rights were regarding the drug question. If the early question was as
"poorly worded and confusing" as Department of Education Spokeswoman Jane
Glickman told the Dayton City Paper in 2003, it would have been more
appropriate to void the drug question until the department could hire a
competent editor.

But the Bush administration strengthened the department's policy in 2001.
The department announced in April of that year that students who fail to
answer the drug question will not receive federal aid. The new FAFSA
included a stern message: "Do not leave question #35 [now 31] blank." The
change in policy sent the numbers of students denied aid for drug
convictions through the roof. By August, 2001, 28,230 students were denied
aid for admitting to having a drug conviction. Another 11,417 were cut off
for failing to answer the question, Gannett News Service reported.

But the system was still punishing the most honest applicants. Many
students felt that it was not a good idea to lie to the government and
answered truthfully - without any idea of what would happen to their
applications. Because they were not familiarized with the law, students
denied aid likely had no idea for how long they were ineligible. For
example, a Columbus Dispatch article seemed to imply that one student
thought he could never again get aid. In fact, his possession conviction
only barred him for one year.

The application process has become more forward about the drug questions in
recent years. The 2005-2006 FAFSA features a reference to the "Drug
Conviction Worksheet." The worksheet is a two-page explanatory document
that takes applicants through a step-by-step process to see if they are
worthy of the federal government's attention.

Shaded in seafoam green (the 2004-2005 worksheet was in "it's-a-girl!"
pink), the worksheet is probably the most pleasant and pretty
narcotics-related documents the federal government has ever released. It
will show up in your mailbox if you leave Question 31 blank, and is
available on the FAFSA Web site.

But data reported by The Boston Globe may show that students are still
failing to understand the question. Of the 93,000 students who reported
drug convictions on their applications in 2003, two-thirds were determined
to be eligible after subsequent paperwork. Many of those denied aid did not
file the additional paperwork, and there is no way to tell how many of them
would actually qualify for federal aid.

This situation is echoed at UT-Austin. Henry Urick, an official with UT
Student Financial Services, said the question's language has "been all over
the place."

"In almost all cases ... the student misunderstood the question," Urick
said of students who answer "yes" to Question 31. "The wording of it is
somewhat arcane."

The drug provision will likely change again this year. A bill to
reauthorize the Higher Education Act would change the law to only prohibit
aid to students who committed drug offenses while receiving federal
assistance. This change in the law will have to be accompanied by a new
question and a new worksheet. How many more students will lose vital
financial aid because of a "poorly worded" question?

Historically, the feds have not asked the drug question clearly. It's time
they stop asking altogether.