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

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations66855WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES2but do not necessarily require that aninstitution measure student progress inclock hours. These commentersrecommended revising proposed§ 668.8(k)(2)(i)(A) so that an institutionis not required to measure studentprogress in clock hours unless theFederal or State authority requires theinstitution to measure student progressexclusively in clock hours. Onecommenter believed that manyaccrediting agencies and State agenciesrequire institutions to include a clockto-credit-hourconversion rate as part ofthe new program submission process,but it is not the agencies’ intent toconsider these credit-hour programs asclock-hour programs. The commentersuggested adding a provision toproposed § 668.8(k)(2)(i)(A) so that itdoes not apply to institutions that arerequired to include a clock-to-credithourconversion rate in their accreditingagency or State application for a newprogram.One commenter believed thataccrediting agencies’ standards varywith regard to requirements forprograms offering a certain number ofclock hours in order for a graduate to beeligible to take a certification orlicensure exam and students’requirement to attend the programs’clock hours. This commenter believedthat there should be no requirement fora program to be a clock-hour programunless an accrediting agency specifiesthat students must attend the clockhours to take the certification orlicensure exam.A few commenters believed thatcredit-hour programs are morerecognized by employers andinstitutions. These commenters believedthat it is difficult for students in clockhourprograms to transfer to credit-hourprograms. The commenters alsobelieved that employer-paid oremployer-reimbursed tuition programsare generally administered based oncredit hours.One commenter believed that theproposed clock-to-credit-hourconversion provisions that only usecredit hours were not consistentconcerning States throughout theproposed regulations.Discussion: The provisions in§ 668.8(k)(2)(i)(A) provide that aprogram must be considered a clockhourprogram for title IV, HEA programpurposes if the program is required tomeasure student progress in clock hoursfor Federal or State approval orlicensure. We believe that anyrequirement for a program to bemeasured in clock hours to receiveFederal or State approval or licensure,and any requirement for a graduate tocomplete clock hours to apply forlicensure or authorization to practice anoccupation demonstrates that a programis fundamentally a clock-hour program,regardless of whether the program hasreceived Federal, State, or accreditingapproval to offer the program in credithours. As clock-hour programs, theseprograms are required to measurestudent progress in clock hours for titleIV, HEA program purposes. In thesecircumstances where a requirementexists for the program to be measured inclock hours, this becomes thefundamental measure of that programfor title IV, HEA program purposes. Thisoutcome is not changed for such aprogram when an institution’s Statelicensing board or accrediting agencyalso allows the institution to award acredential based upon credit hours, orwhen a State licensing board mayrequire that a program be measured inclock hours but the program is approvedby the institution’s accrediting agencyin credit hours. Further, because theinstitution is already required to reportor otherwise establish the underlyingclock hours of a program, we do notagree that provisions in§ 668.8(k)(2)(i)(A) and (B) create anunnecessary duplication of servicesprovided by these approving entities.We also do not believe that using clockhours for title IV, HEA programpurposes will be detrimental toinstitutions that have received licensing,accrediting, or Federal approval to usecredit hours for academic purposes. Inthe case of institutions that are requiredto include a clock-to-credit-hourconversion rate in their accreditingagency or State application for a newprogram, we do not believe thoseaccrediting agency or State requirementswould affect the application of theprovisions of § 668.8(k)(2)(i)(A) and (B)because the institution is clearlyrequired to establish the clock hours inthe program to receive approval.With regard to the commenters whobelieved that credit-hour programs aremore recognized and accepted byemployers and institutions, there are noprovisions in § 668.8(k) and (l) thatwould prevent a program that must beconsidered a clock-hour program fortitle IV, HEA program purposes fromalso being offered in credit hours foracademic or other purposes. We agreethere was an inconsistency in proposed§ 668.8(l)(2) with State requirements.Proposed § 668.8(l)(2) incorrectlyreferred to an institution’s relevant Statelicensing authority when it should havereferred to an institution’s recognizedState agency for the approval of publicpostsecondary vocational institutionsVerDate Mar2010 14:10 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29OCR2.SGM 29OCR2that approves the institution in lieu ofaccreditation by a nationally recognizedaccrediting agency. This has beencorrected.Changes: Section 668.8(l)(2) has beenmodified to remove the reference fromproposed § 668.8(l)(2) to an institution’srelevant State licensing authority andnow refers to an institution’s recognizedState agency for the approval of publicpostsecondary vocational institutions.Comment: Several commenters didnot agree with proposed§ 668.8(k)(2)(iii) that provides that aninstitution must require attendance inthe clock hours that are the basis forcredit hours awarded, except asprovided in current § 668.4(e).Some of these commenters questionedthe effect this provision would have oninstitutions’ attendance policies andasked that the Department clarifywhether institutions are required to takeattendance and have attendance policiesthat prohibit students from havingabsences. Two commenters believedthat institutions would be required totake attendance in clock hours andcredit hours. A few commenters notedthat institutions that recently convertedto systems using credit hours instead ofclock hours, but that do not takeattendance, would be particularlyburdened.A few commenters believed that theDepartment did not address howinstitutions should handle typicalclassroom absences or extended leavesof absence when calculating clock hourscompleted or converting credit hours toclock hours. One commenter expressedconcern that this provision in proposed§ 668.8(k)(2)(iii) would decreaseinstitutions’ ability to address students’needs in regard to absences. A fewcommenters asked whether a studentmust attend 100 percent of the clockhours in a course in order to receivecredit for the course.One commenter believed that theproposed provision is impracticalbecause most institutions use a 50-minute instructional hour instead of a60-minute clock hour. This commenteralso believed that the provision wasunclear on whether the relevant clockhours would be considered to beprovided if no instructor appeared forthe clock hour.One commenter believed that theDepartment should clearly state in thefinal regulations that § 668.8(k)(2)(iii) isnot intended to be a test of thereasonable equivalencies thatinstitutions can develop with regard todetermining credit hours as that term isdefined in proposed § 600.2.Discussion: We believe it is essentialfor an institution to require students to