DAIS Online

November, 2006
Volume I, No. 4

REMEMBER THE GOLDEN RULE –
Reduced Courseload, Full Time Status, and Financial Aid

My father used to have a sign over his desk that read, "Remember the golden rule.*" In small print, at the bottom it said, "*He who has the gold makes the rules!" This is the key to answering the question about students with disabilities, reduced course load, full time status, and federal financial aid – and it is a question that seems to get asked an awful lot lately!!! On the DSSHE-L, on several of the State listservs I monitor, and in several individual requests for technical assistance, I am seeing questions raised about HOW a student with a disability can be declared "full time" with less than the traditional courseload, WHEN such a designation might be appropriate, WHAT the impact would be on the student's financial aid package, WHO has the authority to assign that designation, and WHY anyone would/should care.
I found two articles, written at different points in time for the DAIS Newsletter (and for different reasons!) that, between them, seem to address all the relevant issues, so I offer up both of them for your perusal. There is just one point that I want to give special attention, because it seems to be the trigger for much of the recent listserv speculation.
A lot of the inquiries on this subject have begun with concerns expressed by the student for remaining a full-time student in order to qualify for insurance coverage on a parent's insurance plan. It is only one of the several listed reasons that a student might care about the full-time designation, but it often is a CRITICAL issue for the students involved. Typically, insurance coverage is available for children until age 18, but IF THEY ARE FULL TIME STUDENTS, then that coverage can be extended. Why do you think the insurance companies say that? Do you think the insurance companies care about whether the student takes 9 hours or 12 hours of credit? Do you think they made the "full time" rule in an attempt to assure that all students who continued coverage were sincere and dedicated in their academic pursuits? I don't believe that for a minute. I think they said that the student needed to be full-time because the intent was to assure that this student's *primary role was as a student,* rather than as an independent adult, out there working and earning a full-time salary but taking advantage of their parent's benefit package. Go back and read the part of that last sentence I set off with asterisks. PRIMARY ROLE AS A STUDENT. I think THAT is your answer as to why it is appropriate to approve full-time status for students with disabilities who need a reduced load because of disability. That reduced load hasn't changed the fact that their primary role is as a student. But they may not be able to continue in that role if they don't have health insurance coverage. Your institution is not obligated to help them maintain their insurance as an accommodation under Section 504/ADA. But if we don't want students with disabilities to have a chance to test their potential as students in our programs, what are we doing here? Why WOULDN'T you want to facilitate their chances of being able to embrace their role and responsibilities on campus?
OK, I'm done. Read on, and let me know if you have questions.

*************************

FINANCIAL AID AND "FULL TIME" STATUS:
Let's Try This Once More...
(From February, 1999 Newsletter)

Alright, Class, let's review. We have had this discussion before, but the issue keeps coming up so there must still be some confusion. What constitutes "full time" status at your institution. And what difference does it make?

Subpart E of Section 504 suggests that among the academic adjustments that may be appropriate at the postsecondary level is additional time "for course or course of study." Over the years, this has translated to an understanding and a practice of allowing students with disabilities to progress more slowly in their academic studies without loss of benefits. Translation -- students with disabilities may be declared "full time students" at your institution, with all the rights and privileges of full time students at your institution, with less than the typical full time load if their disability is such that it requires such adjustment in order to equalize the educational opportunity.

Why would it be important for a student to be classified as a "full time student" at your institution? Three reasons jump to mind immediately, although there are certainly others: (1) not infrequently, students can only be covered on their parents' health insurance policies if they are "full time students;" (2) students may not be able to access certain institutional opportunities (from living in the residence hall to tickets for the football games) unless they are full time students; and (3) there may be institutionally sponsored activities that are only available to full time students (from participation on athletic teams to participation in Student Government).

Alright, then, if the law says we should make such an opportunity available, and there are logical reasons for doing so, why is there a problem. Given appropriate documentation of need, why can't the Registrar, or the Dean of Students, or someone within the institutional structure simply nod benignly and say, "Fine. We shall declare this student with a disability to be a full time student with less than the typical full time load."

The problem comes in determining eligibility for financial aid -- specifically, for Pell Grant (federal) stipends and for many State aid packages that have taken their lead from the federal guidelines. The authorizing legislation for the Pell Grants states that a "full time student" for purposes of receiving financial aid shall be a student taking 12 or more hours of coursework. If you aren't taking 12 hours of coursework, you are not eligible for a full Pell stipend. There is no getting around that 12 hour requirement -- and no obligation for an adjustment based on disability-related need to take fewer hours. The student who cannot take 12 hours of coursework, even with a legitimate disability-related reason, is not "otherwise qualified" for the full Pell Grant stipend.

Is everyone with me so far? Alright, then, what constitutes "full time" for a student with a disability... a reduced courseload (based on disability and approved by the institution), or the 12 credit hours required for financial aid? The answer is "YES!!!" They both represent "full time status" -- depending upon the context in which they are used.

In my past life, as a speech pathologist, I learned the concept of "by-passing" in communication. By-passing occurs when people use words with multiple meanings and choose to interpret those same words in different ways, thus creating confusion and misunderstanding:

"Time flies."
"You can't... they go too fast."

This recurring discussion about reduced course load and full time status appears to be a function of this by-passing phenomena. The words used are the same, but the thing they are describing is different.

What constitutes "full time status" for your institution is defined by your institution. The federal government does NOT tell you what you must consider to be full time for your own purposes. Health insurance, access to residence halls, participation in athletics -- these are all parts of being a student at the institution that are available to anyone CLASSIFIED as a full time student by the institution. Many institutions have chosen to adopt the federal financial aid definition of 12 hours as their rule of thumb, and there is nothing to preclude them from doing so. But that is an institutional decision and, in general, if it is a rule that the institution made, it is a rule that the institution can choose to modify.

On the other hand, what constitutes "full time status" for purposes of receiving federal financial aid IS determined by the federal government. The government has chosen to save that designation for those who are taking 12 or more credit hours. The 12 hour class load is a CRITERION for eligibility for financial aid. The institution does not have the option of modifying that rule because it is NOT a rule set by the institution.

It is neither inconsistent nor inappropriate to suggest that a student is considered by the institution to be a full time student with less than the typical full time load but is NOT eligible for full funding through the financial aid program. It is a mistake to insist that because the student has been declared a full time student for institutional purposes, the student should receive a full Pell Grant. Equally, it is a mistake to suggest that because the student is not taking the 12 hours necessary for full financial aid, he/she cannot be considered a full time student by the institution. Same words, different definitions, different purposes, different outcomes. Any questions?
-----------------------

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The article below is excerpted from something written for the DAIS Newsletter in October, 2002. The information release from NASFAA referred to here is still posted to their website as of 11/27/06, so it appears to be the most current take on this issue they are providing to their membership. JEJ)

THE RISE OF DSSINFORMATION

Longtime readers of this newsletter may remember that I have, on several occasions, issued dark warnings about believing too trustingly everything that one sees come across your screen from a listserv... any listserv. This time, I feel a need to cast my veil of suspicion further.

I read a lot of spy novels, which is where I was first introduced to the idea of the enemy using "disinformation" for its own nefarious purposes. My dictionary defines it as, "FALSE (emphasis added) information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth. That surprised me, because I always thought that disinformation included TRUE information presented in a misleading or incomplete manner in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth. It is this second definition that I am using here... and it is this second definition that scares me!

Lately, it seems, I am seeing a lot of things that COULD be "disinformation" showing up on my radar screen. Then again, it could simply be information presented by people who are truly innocent of the potential for misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what they are setting out for public review. Either way, such folks (and their information) can be dangerous when mixed in with a group of professionals who are often new to the topic, and always trusting. Thus is born the concept of "DSSinformation."

Case-in-point: Last week, the following information was released from NASFAA (National Association on Student Financial Aid Administrators). It was apparently posted to their website on October 24th for THEIR membership, and someone forwarded it on to the DSS person on his campus, who kindly passed it on to a listserv for DSS providers -- where it was picked up by at least three folks I know and further posted to state-wide listservs for DSS providers. Here is the "Technical Assistance" release:

+-------------------------------+

NASFAA Technical Assistance
Americans with Disabilities Act and Enrollment Status for Title IV Purposes

Often NASFAA receives questions on whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) permits schools to use a full-time enrollment standard for students who have a disability that is different from the standard they use for other students when determining eligibility for Title IV aid purposes. NASFAA has recently discussed this issue with the Department of Education, and the answer is no.

The Title IV regulations permit schools to define full-time enrollment for each of their programs provided the definition meets minimum regulatory requirements. In addition, the full-time enrollment standard used by the financial aid office for Title IV purposes may differ from the full-time standard used for other purposes at the school as long as that also meets the minimum regulatory requirements. A school must apply its standards consistently to all students enrolled in the same program of study for all Title IV purposes. There is no provision in the Higher Education Act governing the administration of the Title IV programs to allow a school to waive minimum full-time enrollment requirements.

For example, suppose a student with a disability is eligible for a Federal Pell Grant. Under the Federal Pell Grant Program, the student's enrollment status affects the amount of Federal Pell Grant the student is eligible to receive. The Department of Education has stated that in paying a Federal Pell Grant, the school cannot accommodate a student with a disability by allowing the student a full-time enrollment status that is lower than the minimum standard the school set for Title IV purposes.

By Eileen F. Welsh
NASFAA Assistant Director for Training and Technical Assistance

+-------------------------------+

Old-timers should recognize that this message contains *absolutely* nothing new. If you did NOT recognize that, then I've just proved my point (re: DSSinformation). I am willing to allow for the likely possibility that the author (and the NASFAA organization) had no clue as to how this post COULD be read and misinterpreted by those working outside the area of Financial Aid (much less those inside who have been misinterpreting it, in some cases, for some years!). I am sure that the organization DOES get this question frequently from their Financial Aid Directors, who are getting pressed by DSS personnel as to WHY students with disabilities who have been declared full-time with less than the standard full-time load are not eligible for full Pell Grant stipends. So they went back and re-checked their information and their position, confirmed their understanding with appropriate sources, and published this technical assistance briefing. Why is that a problem?

It is a problem because I would venture to guess that some of the Financial Aid directors and MOST of the DSS folks who have been in the field for five years or less read this posting and understood it to mean that the federal government (through the Department of Education and the Higher Education Act) prohibits students from disabilities from being declared full time students with less than the typical full-time load and that this is a newly stated position of the Department of Education which should be implemented ASAP.

Just for the record:

1) Subpart E of Section 504 of the Rehab Act allows for the possibility that among the academic adjustments that may be appropriate (§104.44) is extended time for course or course of study. This has ALWAYS been translated to mean that students with disabilities should be allowed to take a lower course load without penalty (read, "loss of privileges") if their disability precludes their being able to handle the traditional full-time courseload effectively.

2) An institution has the right to determine what will constitute a full-time courseload (and, therefore, a full time student) within the institution. Such designation may impact on a range of benefits and privileges from who is entitled to football tickets, to who makes the Dean's List, to who can live in the Residence Hall, to who is entitled to be claimed on their parent's health insurance (a TERRIBLY important issue for many students with disabilities).

3) The determination of who can receive a full Pell Grant stipend is NOT made on the basis of the institution's decision regarding full-time status. The institution can determine "full time" to be anything it chooses for its own purposes, but FOR PURPOSES OF AWARDING PELL GRANTS (what the memo refers to as "for purposes of Title IV"), the designated full-time must be AT LEAST the minimum statutory requirement which is, as I recall, 12 credit hours per term. THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, and nothing has changed.

4) The insistence on a minimum of 12 hours for full-time designation for Title IV (#3 above) does not, in any way, preclude the existing authority of the institution to declare a student with a disability to be full time for ITS OWN purposes (#2 above).

...AND NOTHING IN THE NASFAA RELEASE SUGGESTS ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU SEE ABOVE, WHICH HAS BEEN THE POLICY FOR 20+ YEARS.

By actual count, the memo refers to Title IV and Federal Pell Grants 11 separate time. This is all about what Title IV of the Higher Education Act says regarding full-time status of all students receiving financial aid assistance, including those with disabilities. That is all it is about. In fairness, this isn't disinformation, because it wasn't offered specifically for the purpose of misleading public opinion or obscuring the truth. But I believe that is the impact of this briefing on a lot of its readers/consumers. It probably qualifies as DSSinformation. I would venture to guess that a lot of DSS providers read something like this through their own internal filter and end up with a very different impression. Let's look at the first paragraph:

"Often NASFAA receives questions on whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) permits schools to use a full-time enrollment standard for students who have a disability that is different from the standard they use for other students...NASFAA has recently discussed this issue with the Department of Education, and the answer is no. "

Without the words, " when determining eligibility for Title IV aid purposes" in place of my "..." that paragraph conveys a very different message. But the fact is that those words ARE in there. How about this one:

" The Department of Education has stated that ... the school cannot accommodate a student with a disability by allowing the student a full-time enrollment status that is lower than the minimum standard"

Without the reference to paying a Federal Pell Grant or to Title IV purposes, this statement leaves the reader with a very different understanding of the rules. It would seem that the Department of Education has recently clarified its policy that students with disabilities may not be granted full-time status with less than the traditional full-time load, right? NOT!!!

Remember the old line from the Pogo comic strip?
"We have met the enemy, and they are us!"

If we are too trusting, or too anxious, or too busy to THINK about what we are reading, and to incorporate it into the framework of what we already know, then we have no one but ourselves to blame if we end up in a dither.

I am having bumper stickers printed for my friends and colleagues for Christmas that read:
HELP STAMP OUT DSSinformation!!!!

-------------------
(End Newsletter)