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

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations66851WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES2believed that the integrity ofinstitutions’ assignment of credit hoursis already reviewed and evaluated byaccrediting agencies through a system ofpeer review. These commenters alsobelieved that the peer-review system iscapable of recognizing how credit hoursare defined in different settings. A fewcommenters noted that the Secretary hasalready permitted accrediting agenciesto perform this function and thataccreditors have been diligent in theirduties. One commenter believed that theSecretary could tighten Federalregulatory control over institutions’credit-hour policies by revising theexisting accrediting agency recognitionregulations in 34 CFR part 602.One commenter believed thataccrediting agencies have long-standingpractices, or in the case of some nationalaccrediting agencies, formulas thatprovide reasonable measures of credithours.Discussion: We agree with thecommenters who believed thataccrediting agencies’ peer-reviewsystems are structured to evaluate theappropriateness of institutions’ creditpolicies and assignments in diverseeducational settings. Amending § 602.24to add § 602.24(f) initially was aproposal of the non-Federal negotiatorsrepresenting accrediting agencies toclarify their role in overseeing theassignment of credit hours byinstitutions as it relates to Federalprogram requirements. With theaddition of the credit-hour definition in§ 600.2, we added § 602.24(f) regardingan accrediting agency’s review of aninstitution’s policies and procedures forassigning credit hours, and theinstitution’s application of thesepolicies because this addition indicateshow those requirements fit together andmakes the two regulations consistent.We note that these provisions relatesolely to an accrediting agency’sconsideration of an institution’simplementation of the credit-hourdefinition for Federal program purposes.The regulations do not require theaccrediting agency to use the definitionof credit hour in § 600.2 for non-Federalpurposes nor do the regulations prohibitan accrediting agency from only usingthe definition of credit hour in § 600.2.We believe that § 602.24(f) is theappropriate place to define accreditingagencies’ responsibilities for reviewinginstitutions’ processes for assigningcredit for title IV, HEA programpurposes because § 602.24 defines theprocedures institutional accreditorsmust have if the institutions theyaccredit participate in title IV, HEAprograms.Changes: None.Comment: Several commenters didnot support the addition of § 602.24(f)because they believed the proposedprovisions would allow the Departmentto indirectly regulate academic matters.A few of these commenters requestedthat the Department add language to theregulations making it clear that noprovision in § 602.24 would permit theSecretary to establish any criteria thatspecifies, defines, or prescribes theprocedures that accrediting agenciesshall use to assess any institution’scredit-hour policies or procedures.One commenter believed that byrequiring accrediting agencies to ensureinstitutions’ compliance with theproposed credit-hour definition in§ 600.2, the Department would beplacing accrediting agencies into aquasi-regulatory role for which they areneither designed nor intended. Thiscommenter believed that over timeaccrediting agencies’ regulatory role willbe seen as their most important role andaccrediting agencies will in effectbecome government agents. Anothercommenter believed that proposed§ 602.24(f) would cause accreditingagencies to focus on institutions’assignment of credit hours instead ofother valuable areas of review.One commenter requestedclarification of whether § 602.24(f)would allow the Department to relyexclusively on an accrediting agency’sdetermination of an institution’sdefinition and assignment of credit, orwhether the Department would haveseparate authority under the regulationsto evaluate and regulate an institution’sdefinition or assignment of credit fortitle IV, HEA program eligibilitypurposes.One commenter believed that anaccrediting agency found to bepermitting inappropriate creditassignment activities at institutionsshould be cited and forced to addressthe identified issues. Anothercommenter believed that institutions’policies for assigning credit areextremely diverse, and that theDepartment is not capable of properlydetermining whether an accreditingagency has appropriately evaluated thevariety of institutional policies.One commenter believed theprovisions in § 602.24(f) areunnecessary because section496(a)(5)(H) of the HEA requiresaccrediting agencies to assessinstitutions’ measures of program lengthbut does not mandate any quantitativerequirements establishing thecomponents necessary for the measureof credit.Discussion: The provisions in§ 602.24(f) reflect that accreditingVerDate Mar2010 14:10 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29OCR2.SGM 29OCR2agencies are the oversight bodiesresponsible for evaluating theappropriateness of institutions’ policiesand procedures for assigning credit thatis consistent with Federal programpurposes. This role is in accordancewith the provisions of the HEA underwhich accrediting agencies have theprimary responsibility, as part of theoversight triad with the FederalGovernment and State agencies, todetermine whether institutionsparticipating in Federal programs suchas the title IV, HEA programs, meetminimum standards of educationalquality. The provisions in § 602.24(f)further support accrediting agencies infulfilling these responsibilities but donot prescribe the methods by whichaccrediting agencies must perform theseevaluations.If the Secretary determines that arecognized accrediting agency does notcomply with the provisions in§ 602.24(f) for purposes of Federalprograms, or is not effective in itsperformance with respect to theseprovisions, then the Secretary mayrestrict or remove the agency’srecognition in accordance with 34 CFRpart 602, subpart C.We do not agree that the provisions in§ 602.24(f) are unnecessary. Whilesection 496(a)(5)(H) of the HEA requiresaccrediting agencies to assessinstitutions’ measures of programlength, we believe the provisions in§ 602.24(f) provide necessaryclarification regarding the means ofevaluating an institution’s assignment ofcredit hours.Changes: None.Comment: A few commentersbelieved that the provisions in§ 602.24(f) were not specific enoughwith regard to the requirements foraccrediting agencies.One commenter proposed that theDepartment require accrediting agenciesto base their evaluations of the validityof institutions’ credit-hour assignmentson the manner in which otherinstitutions offering similar programsassess and accept credits for purposes ofevaluating credit for transfer.One commenter asked the Departmentto revise proposed § 602.24(f)(1)(ii) tospecify that accrediting agencies mustmake a determination of whether aninstitution’s assignment of credit hoursconforms to the provisions in proposed§ 600.2.One commenter recommended thatthe Department require accreditingagencies to prescribe clearly themethodologies and equivalencies thatwill be utilized by institutions todetermine the amount of work specifiedby the credit assigned to courses as