Office of Postsecondary Education - U.S. Department of Education

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations66847WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES2online and distance educationprograms, and hybrid programs withonline and in-class components. A fewcommenters believed that the proposedcredit-hour definition wouldparticularly suppress innovation ofdelivery methods because institutionswould be focused on ensuring they meetthe Federal definition of a credit hourand not on the desired academicoutcomes. These commenters believedthat institutions would not be able torespond to changing studentpopulations by diversifying deliverymethods. A few commenters noted thatminority students and nontraditionalstudents such as veterans, activemilitary personnel, and working adultswould be particularly harmed becausethey rely on programs offered throughalternative delivery methods.Several commenters believed that theproposed credit-hour definition is notapplicable to alternative deliverymethods. A few commenters believedthat credit hours are not compatiblewith technological advancements ineducation. These commenters believedthat the proposed credit-hour definitionwould minimize the use of technologyin education. Some commentersbelieved that proposed paragraph (1)assumed a classroom or lecture basedmodel of instruction and was notapplicable to online or hybrid programs.A few commenters questioned how tomeasure direct faculty instruction withregard to an online or hybrid programwhen no physical classroom exists. Twocommenters noted that in distanceeducation and hybrid programs, theconcept of contact hours does not apply.The commenters recommendedexpanding paragraph (3) of the proposeddefinition to specifically address thatinstitutions offering nontraditionalprograms including distance deliveryprograms and accelerated programs mayprovide institutionally establishedequivalencies for the amount of workrequired in paragraph (1) within thediscretion of the institution.Several commenters believed that theSecretary’s proposed credit-hourdefinition would negatively impact howearned credits are calculated for onlineand hybrid courses.One commenter believed that theSecretary’s proposed credit-hourdefinition represented an effort by theSecretary to reinstate a regulation thathad been removed in 2002 whichrequired higher education programs thatdid not operate in a standard semester,trimester, or quarter system to offer aminimum of 12 hours of course workper week to maintain eligibility for titleIV, HEA program funds.Two commenters believed that theSecretary’s proposed credit-hourregulations would legitimizeinstitutions’ use of the Carnegie Unit,which generally consists of a ratio oftwo hours of work outside of class forevery hour of classroom time, andincrease scrutiny on institutions that donot currently use the Carnegie Unit.These commenters believed that underthe proposed regulations, aninstitutional credit system that is notcurrently based on the Carnegie Unitwould be undervalued because theseinstitutions would have a significantburden to develop and demonstratestudent achievement of learningoutcomes that their peers using theCarnegie Unit would not have.Discussion: We do not agree with thecommenters that the credit-hourdefinition in § 600.2 will limitinstitutions’ flexibility to creativelyrespond to innovations in educationaldelivery methods and changing studentneeds. A fundamental component of thecredit-hour definition in § 600.2provides that institutions mustdetermine the academic activity thatapproximates the amount of workdefined in paragraph (1) based oninstitutionally established learningoutcomes and verifiable studentachievement. The definition allowsinstitutions that have alternativedelivery methods, measurements ofstudent work, or academic calendars todetermine intended learning outcomesand verify evidence of studentachievement.All institutions participating in titleIV, HEA programs have a responsibilityto ensure appropriate treatment ofFederal funds, regardless of courseformat or educational delivery method.The definition in § 600.2 providesinstitutions with a baseline fordetermining the amount of student worknecessary for title IV, HEA programeligibility, but does not specify theparticular program formats or deliverymethods that institutions must use.The credit-hour definition is not areinstatement of the old ‘‘12-hour rule,’’that was removed from the Department’sregulations in 2002. The 12-hour rulerequired programs that did not operatein standard semester-, trimester-, orquarter-term systems to offer aminimum of 12 hours of course workper week to maintain eligibility forFederal programs. The credit-hourdefinition in these final regulationsapplies to all institutions, regardless ofwhether they operate on a standard-termacademic calendar. In addition, whilethe old 12-hour rule required 12 hoursof instruction, examination, orpreparation offered by an institution perVerDate Mar2010 14:10 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29OCR2.SGM 29OCR2week, the credit-hour provisions in§ 600.2 require institutions to providestudents with an amount of workequivalent to the amount of workdescribed in paragraph (1) of the credithourdefinition.Changes: None.Comment: Several commentersobjected to proposed paragraph (3) ofthe credit-hour definition. A fewcommenters believed that paragraph (3)of the proposed credit-hour definition isvague regarding the entity responsiblefor determining ‘‘reasonableequivalencies.’’ A few commentersbelieved that the proposed credit-hourprovisions did not provide enoughguidance on what academic activitiesthe Department would accept asreasonable equivalencies for the amountof work defined in proposed paragraph(1). A few commenters believed that theterm ‘‘reasonable’’ put the Department inthe position of final arbiter on thedetermination of reasonableequivalencies.One commenter believed thatproposed paragraph (3) createduncertainty and the potential forlitigation related to whether aninstitution’s proposed equivalency forthe work defined in paragraph (1) isreasonable. This commenter expressedconcern that institutions would be liablefor using equivalencies that theDepartment viewed as unacceptable.One commenter asked for clarificationon the types of corrective actions thatthe Department can take to enforce theprovisions of the credit-hour definitionin proposed § 600.2.Discussion: Institutions have aresponsibility to ensure that the use ofFederal program funds is in accordancewith applicable regulations. In addition,the Department has the oversightresponsibility to determine thatinstitutions are acting in accordancewith the definition of a credit hour inthese final regulations to ensure theappropriate use of Federal programfunds. It is therefore necessary andappropriate for the Secretary to reviewan institution’s assignment of credit forFederal purposes and an accreditingagencies’ or State agencies’ evaluationsof an institution’s credit polices andtheir implementation to determinewhether an institution is assigningcredit hours for Federal programpurposes in accordance with these finalregulations. If an institution is found tobe out of compliance for Federalprogram purposes with the credit-hourdefinition in § 600.2, the amount orTitle IV, HEA funds awarded under theincorrect assignment of credit hoursmay be recalculated to establish arepayment liability owed by the