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

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES266852 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulationsrepresented through stated studentlearning outcomes and demonstratedachievement of those outcomes,regardless of the delivery method.One commenter recommendedrevising the proposed accreditingagency requirements in § 602.24(f) tostate that in the case of competencybasedprograms that do not use clockhours or classroom time as a basis forcredit, an accrediting agency mustdetermine the appropriate assignment ofcredit by reviewing a well-substantiatedlist of competencies and assessingdocumented evidence of studentachievement of competencies.A few commenters requested that theDepartment revise proposed§ 602.24(f)(2) to clarify that accreditingagencies have the authority andautonomy to determine reviewmethodologies and techniques.One commenter believed that itwould be appropriate for an accreditingagency to review a sample of aninstitution’s curriculum to determinewhether the credit assignment policieswere being appropriately applied by aninstitution, but it would not beappropriate for an accrediting agency toemploy an unspecified sample of otherinstitutions to determine whether or notthe credits awarded for a particularcourse or program conformed tocommonly accepted practice in highereducation. This commenter suggestedrevising proposed paragraph§ 602.24(f)(2) to specify that the agencymust sample courses within aninstitution’s program of study.One commenter suggested thataccrediting agencies review annualinstitutional submissions of data,policies, and procedures for assigningcredit hours.Discussion: We do not believe thatfurther specificity is appropriate ornecessary in § 602.24(f). Accreditingagencies must have the flexibility toreview institutional credit-assignmentprocesses that may vary widely in theirpolicies and implementation and mayhave differing methods for measuringstudent work such as direct assessment.We believe that accrediting agencies arecapable of developing appropriatemethods for evaluating institutionalcredit processes without providingfurther specificity in the regulations. Wenote that accrediting agencies mustdemonstrate their ability toappropriately review these areas inorder to receive recognition by theSecretary as reliable authorities on thequality of education or training offeredby the institutions and programs theyaccredit, and that evaluation by theSecretary continues during periodicreviews of accrediting agencies.We believe that it is not necessary tospecify how an accrediting agencyshould review a competency-basedprogram that does not use credit hoursor clock hours as a basis for credit. Inthe case of a competency-basedprogram, the institution may either basethe assignment of credit on the time ittakes most students to complete theprogram, or the program must meet thedefinition of a direct assessmentprogram in § 668.10. In the firstscenario, the institution’s accreditingagency would review the institution’scompliance with the provisions in§ 600.2 or § 668.8(k) and (l) asapplicable. In the second scenario, theinstitution’s accrediting agency mustreview and approve each of theinstitution’s direct assessmentprogram’s equivalencies in terms ofcredit hours or clock hours.Changes: None.Comment: A few commentersopposed the proposed provisions in§ 602.24(f)(1)(i)(A) and (B) requiringaccrediting agencies to evaluate aninstitution’s policies and procedures fordetermining credit hours in accordancewith proposed § 600.2 and to evaluatean institution’s application of thosepolicies and procedures to its programsand courses. Two commenters suggestedthat the provisions should not requireaccrediting agencies to evaluatecompliance with proposed § 600.2 butshould permit institutions to justify themanner in which credit hours areassigned and permit accreditingagencies to determine whether aninstitution’s application of its policiesand procedures are appropriate. Thesecommenters believed that the proposedprovisions require accrediting agenciesto instruct institutions to follow aspecific approach to assigning credithours.A few commenters suggested that thecross reference to the proposed credithourdefinition in § 600.2 be strickenfrom proposed § 602.24(f)(1)(i)(A) andreplaced with a provision requiringaccrediting agencies to conduct theirreview of an institution’s assignment ofcredit hours consistent with theprovisions of § 602.16(f).Discussion: We do not believe that theprovisions in proposed § 602.24(f)require accrediting agencies to mandatespecific policies for institutions withregard to assigning credit hours toprograms and coursework. However, wedo believe that it is necessary to specifyin § 602.24(f) that accrediting agenciesmust review an institution’s policiesand procedures for determining credithours, and the application of thosepolicies and procedures to programsand coursework in accordance withVerDate Mar2010 14:10 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29OCR2.SGM 29OCR2§ 600.2 for title IV, HEA programpurposes. Accreditation by anaccrediting agency recognized by theSecretary is an institutional andprogrammatic requirement for eligibilityfor the title IV, HEA programs.It is appropriate to specify theresponsibilities of an accrediting agencyin reviewing institutions’ processes forassigning credit hours in § 602.24, andnot § 602.16. The provisions in § 602.24are related specifically to proceduresaccrediting agencies must have forinstitutions they accredit to obtaineligibility to participate in title IV, HEAprograms. The provisions in § 602.16(f)address the processes used byaccrediting agencies in setting standardsin statutorily-defined areas required foragencies to be recognized by theSecretary.Changes: None.Comment: A few commentersexpressed concern about proposed§ 602.24(f)(1)(ii), which requiresaccrediting agencies to determinewhether an institution’s assignment ofcredit hours conforms to commonlyaccepted practice in higher education.A few commenters believed that thisproposal was inconsistent with theproposed credit-hour definition in§ 600.2 and expressed a preference forthe language in proposed§ 602.24(f)(1)(ii).One commenter suggested strikingthis proposed provision from theregulations and including thisinformation in the ‘‘Guide to theAccrediting Agency RecognitionProcess’’ issued by the Department. Thisguide was issued in August 2010 underthe title ‘‘Guidelines for Preparing/Reviewing Petitions and ComplianceReports.’’One commenter suggested revisingproposed § 602.24(f)(1)(ii) to requireaccrediting agencies to evaluateinstitutions’ assignment of credit hoursbased on a comparative study of similarinstitutions.Discussion: We do not agree that theprovisions in §§ 600.2 and602.24(f)(1)(ii) are inconsistent. Theprovisions in § 600.2 establish a title IV,HEA program requirement forinstitutions to award credit hours for anamount of academic work that is areasonable equivalency to the amount ofwork defined in paragraph (1) of thecredit-hour definition. By comparison,the reference to ‘‘commonly acceptedpractice in higher education’’ in§ 602.24(f)(1)(ii) establishes theparameters for accrediting agencies todetermine whether institutions establishreasonable equivalences for the amountof work in paragraph (1) of the credithourdefinition within the framework of