Federal Student Loan Discharge Procedures for Borrowers Who Become Totally and Permanently Disabled: Current Issues and Policy Considerations

David P. Smole
Specialist in Education Policy

Umar Moulta-Ali
Analyst in Disability Policy

According to the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA; P.L. 89-329), federal student loans made through the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (DL) program, and the Federal Perkins Loan program; and the service obligation of recipients of Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant are discharged if the borrower or recipient becomes totally and permanently disabled (TPD). These requirements are implemented according to regulations administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED).

An individual may qualify for a TPD discharge on the basis of being unable to engage in substantial gainful activity due to a medically determinable mental or physical impairment that can be expected to last for at least 60 months or result in death. Additionally, an individual may qualify on the basis of having been determined by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to be “unemployable” due to a service-connected condition.

The criteria and procedures for federal student loan and TEACH Grant TPD determinations are distinct from the disability determination procedures used for other federal benefits—in particular, Veterans Disability Compensation (VDC) performed by the VA and certain disability determinations performed by the Social Security Administration (SSA) under the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. In addition, SSA disability determinations are not accepted by ED in lieu of its own TPD determinations. Concerns have been raised that requiring individuals who have received disability determinations through SSA procedures to undergo separate disability determinations for purposes of student loan discharge may be unduly burdensome.

This report provides a brief overview of the criteria and procedures used by ED to determine whether borrowers of federal student loans and recipients of TEACH grants are totally and permanently disabled, and thus eligible to have their student loan debt or service obligations discharged. It also briefly describes disability determination procedures used by the VA to determine “Individual Unemployability” for service-connected disabled veterans, the results of which may be considered in disability determinations for federal student loan TPD discharge; and by SSA to determine eligibility for SSDI and SSI benefits. The report also identifies and examines a series of options for incorporating aspects of SSA disability determination procedures into the disability determination process for federal student loan TPD discharge.

On October 28, 2011, ED announced the establishment of a negotiated rulemaking committee that will likely address the topic of amending regulations on student loan TPD discharges. Negotiated rulemaking is expected to occur in 2012.


Date of Report: December 1, 2011
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R42110
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The Education of Students with Disabilities: Alignment Between the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Erin D. Lomax
Specialist in Education Policy

Ann Lordeman
Specialist in Social Policy

The largest sources of federal funding for elementary and secondary education are the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; P.L. 107-110), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; P.L. 108-446). The ESEA provides funding and services for a broad population of students, including disadvantaged students, migrant students, neglected and delinquent students, and students with limited English proficiency. Approximately 6 million students with disabilities ages 6 through 21 attend elementary and secondary schools; however, they are not afforded special services under the ESEA due to their disability status. The IDEA provides funding and services specifically for those students with disabilities. Both the ESEA and IDEA aim to improve the educational outcomes for students with disabilities. The ways in which they do this sometimes differ, and when the laws are not fully or clearly aligned it can be difficult for educators to plan and execute an appropriate education for students with disabilities.

In the 112th Congress, legislators may consider the reauthorization of the ESEA. This report focuses on four broad policy issues within both the ESEA and IDEA, which potentially create differing expectations or requirements for schools and teachers educating students with disabilities: 

• Standards. Under the ESEA, students with disabilities are taught to state academic content standards that apply to all children in the state. Under the IDEA, academic goals are established for each child in an individualized education program (IEP). 
• Assessments. Under the ESEA, students with disabilities participate in annual assessments that determine adequate yearly progress toward meeting expectations associated with state academic content and achievement standards. Under the IDEA, students with disabilities are assessed for identification purposes and for monitoring progress toward meeting goals articulated in their IEPs. 
• Accountability. The ESEA accountability system primarily measures whether schools and local education agencies are making adequate yearly progress in reading and mathematics achievement. The “students with disabilities” subgroup is expected to make adequate yearly progress. The IDEA monitoring system measures whether states are meeting certain compliance and performance indicators to determine whether the law is being implemented as intended. 
• Teachers. Both the ESEA and IDEA have requirements regarding “highly qualified” teachers. The ESEA includes a definition of “highly qualified” teacher as the term relates to teachers of elementary and secondary education. The IDEA also includes a definition of “highly qualified” teacher as the term relates to special education teachers of elementary and secondary education. Because students with disabilities spend the majority of time in the general education classroom, they are affected by both definitions. 

This report highlights issues pertaining to alignment and misalignment among ESEA and IDEA provisions within these areas, describes how statutory and regulatory language has sought to clarify these issues, and addresses specific issues that Congress may want to clarify as it considers the reauthorization of ESEA.


Date of Report: October 31, 2011
Number of Pages: 37
Order Number: R42070
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Department of Education Final Rules for Postsecondary Education Programs That Prepare Students for Gainful Employment in a Recognized Occupation

David P. Smole
Specialist in Education Policy

Some postsecondary education programs at institutions of higher education that are eligible for participation in the federal student aid programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), face additional conditions for Title IV aid eligibility. These programs, which are offered by public and private not-for-profit institutions of higher education and postsecondary vocational institutions, and by for-profit proprietary institutions of higher education, must prepare students for gainful employment in recognized occupations.

Until recently, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) had not promulgated regulations that explicitly defined what it means for a program to be preparing students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. However, to address concerns about the quality of programs that prepare students for gainful employment and concerns about the level of student loan debt assumed by students who attend these programs, ED issued new rules on gainful employment in late 2010 and early 2011.

On October 29, 2010, ED published final rules that establish a series of reporting and disclosure requirements for institutions of higher education that offer gainful employment programs. These final rules became effective July 1, 2011. On June 13, 2011, ED published final rules that establish a series of three performance metrics designed to measure how effectively completers of gainful employment programs repay the student loans they borrow to attend these programs, and the relationship between their student loan debt and their earnings. One metric, a loan repayment rate, is designed to measure how effectively students who are borrowers of federal student loans and who attended a gainful employment program repay the loans they borrowed to attend the program. Two additional metrics—an earnings rate and a discretionary income rate—are debt-toearnings measures that are designed to measure the proportion of students who complete a gainful employment program whose combined federal and non-federal student loan debt exceeds certain percentage thresholds of their earnings. A program that fails to pass at least one of the three performance metrics for any three out of the most recently completed four fiscal years will lose eligibility to participate in HEA, Title IV programs. These final rules become effective July 1, 2012.

The establishment of new rules on gainful employment has been very contentious. When ED published proposed rules in the summer of 2010, it received an unprecedented volume of comments. Overall, ED received more than 90,000 comments, with approximately three-quarters opposed to the rules and one-quarter in support. Many were concerned that the new rules would increase regulatory burden and potential adverse effects from programs losing eligibility to participate in HEA, Title IV federal student aid programs. Others supported the regulation of gainful employment programs, particularly with regard to the student loan debt of students who attend them.

On February 19, 2011, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, which among other things would have prohibited the use of funds appropriated by the act to implement, administer, or enforce regulations or rules related to the term “gainful employment.” The Senate failed to take action on H.R. 1.

This report provides an overview of the Department of Education’s final rules on gainful employment.


Date of Report: September 20, 2011
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: R42011
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Secretary of Education’s Waiver Authority with Respect to Title I-A Provisions Included in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

To: House Committee on Education and the Workforce
Attention: Majority Committee Staff

From: Emily Barbour, Legislative Attorney
Jody Feder, Legislative Attorney
Rebecca Skinner, Specialist in Education Policy

This memorandum responds to your request for an analysis of the Secretary of Education’s waiver authority with respect to Title I-A provisions included in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This memorandum is substantially identical to a November 29, 2010 memorandum that was prepared for committee staff by Jody Feder, Legislative Attorney, and Rebecca Skinner, Specialist in Education Policy. At the Committee’s request, the November 2010 memorandum was reviewed, and its analysis was determined to be both accurate and timely under current circumstances. That memorandum, the body of which begins in the next paragraph, examines: (1) the Secretary’s use of waivers in the circumstances the Committee specified; (2) the extent to which the Secretary can condition waivers on an applicant’s performance of other actions; and (3) the scope of the Secretary’s waiver authority in the instances the Committee identified.

The first section of the memorandum begins with a general overview of the authority provided to the Secretary under Section 9401 of the ESEA to grant case-by-case waivers under the ESEA. This discussion examines the requirements that waiver requests must meet and limitations on the Secretary’s authority in this area. This is followed by an examination of any potential waiver authority or prohibitions on waivers included in Title I-A. The next section of the memorandum discusses current uses of waiver authority by the Secretary. The following section provides a legal analysis of the scope of the Secretary’s authority to waive ESEA requirements. This discussion is followed by an analysis of whether the Secretary has the authority to require states and local educational agencies (LEAs) to take an action not required by law in order to receive a waiver. The last part of the memorandum discusses the potential use of the Secretary’s waiver authority in the five specific examples you specified. Given the general interest in this topic, CRS may provide some or all of the information contained in this memorandum to other congressional requesters.


Date of Report: June 28, 2011
Number of Pages: 11
Order Number: M-062811
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization: Comparison of Proposed Charter School Legislation (H.R. 2218) and Current Law

Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education Policy

The primary source of federal aid to K-12 education is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The ESEA was initially enacted in 1965 (P.L. 89-10), and was most recently amended and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110), which authorized virtually all ESEA programs through FY2008. The 112th Congress is actively engaged in work to amend the ESEA. On June 16, 2011, Representative Duncan Hunter, Chairman of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, introduced the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act (H.R. 2218). The bill was subsequently ordered reported by the House Education and Workforce Committee on July 22, 2011 (H.Rept. 112-178). This bill would modify the existing Charter Schools Program, Per-Pupil Facilities Aid program, and Credit Enhancement Initiatives to Assist Charter School Facility Acquisition, Construction, and Renovation program (hereinafter referred to as the Credit Enhancement program) currently authorized under ESEA Title V-B-1 and 2.

H.R. 2218 would make substantial changes to Title V-B-1 and 2, while preserving many of the provisions of current law, albeit in a different structure. Some of the most substantial changes that would be made by H.R. 2218 include the following: 

•       Expand the scope of the Charter School Program to include funding for new charter schools; replicable, high-quality charter school models; and the expansion of high-quality charter schools. 

•       Change applicant eligibility for the Charter School Program. 

•       Extend the grant period under the Charter School Program from up to three years to up to five years for both state entities receiving grants from the Secretary of Education and eligible applicants receiving grants from state entities. 

•       Emphasize the need for charter schools to serve all students, including children with disabilities and English language learners, and increase the focus placed on having a quality chartering process at the state and local levels. 

•       Retain both the Per-Pupil Facilities Aid program and the Credit Enhancement program with provisions similar to those contained in current law, but restructure current law provisions to authorize both programs under a new section entitled Facilities Financing Assistance. Priority would be given to using funds for the Credit Enhancement program over the use of funds for the Per-Pupil Facilities Aid program. 

•       Change the use of funds for national activities to focus on providing charter school startup grants to eligible applicants and disseminating technical assistance to state entities in awarding subgrants, disseminating best practices, and evaluating the impact of the charter school program. 

•       Alter the authorization of funds for all three charter school programs, as well as for national activities, authorizing 15% of the total appropriation for Facilities Financing Assistance, up to 5% for national activities, and the remaining funds for the Charter School Program.

Date of Report: September 2, 2011
Number of Pages: 58
Order Number: R41877
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.