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

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations66883WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES2annually, then it would evaluate all ofthe coursework that the student hasattempted and completed since the lastannual evaluation to determine whetherthe student is making satisfactoryacademic progress. There are no periodsof the student’s attendance that are notconsidered in the evaluation.Changes: None.Minimum GPAComment: One commenter noted that,under current § 668.34(b), a studentmust have a ‘‘C’’ average or its equivalentafter two years in order to makesatisfactory academic progress. Thecommenter noted that the Department’sguidance in this area has been that thestudent must have a ‘‘C’’ average or itsequivalent after two years of attendance,regardless of the student’s enrollmentstatus during that time. The commenterstated that proposed § 668.34(4)(ii)states that the ‘‘C’’ average is required atthe end of two academic years. Thecommenter asked the Department toclarify whether the use of the phrase‘‘two academic years’’ as opposed to thephrase ‘‘two years’’ results in anysubstantive change in how theDepartment interprets this requirement.Another commenter stated that thecurrent regulations are sufficient in thisarea, because they allow institutions tointerpret the phrase ‘‘two years’’ in theway that is best for their students.Discussion: The term ‘‘academic year’’is used in section 484(c)(1)(B) of theHEA, which states that a student isconsidered to be maintainingsatisfactory academic progress if thestudent has a cumulative ‘‘C’’ average, orits equivalent or academic standingconsistent with the requirements forgraduation, as determined by theinstitution, at the end of the secondsuch academic year. We changed thereference from ‘‘year’’ to ‘‘academic year’’in § 668.34 to more closely align thisregulatory language with thecorresponding statutory language. Thischange, however, does not alter theDepartment’s interpretation that thisrequirement means that a student musthave a ‘‘C’’ average or its equivalent aftertwo years of attendance, regardless ofthe student’s enrollment status.Changes: None.PaceComment: Two commenters notedthat proposed § 668.34(a)(5)(ii) statesthat an institution is not required toinclude remedial coursework whendetermining the attempted andcompleted hours for purposes ofevaluating a student’s pace towardcompletion of the program. Bothcommenters requested clarification thatan institution may, but is not requiredto, include remedial coursework whenmaking its SAP determination.Discussion: It is the Department’slongstanding position that an institutionis not required to include remedialcourses when calculating the student’sprogress towards program completion.While an institution is not required toinclude remedial courses whencalculating pace under the SAPanalysis, it may do so as long as its SAPpolicy otherwise meets the requirementsin § 668.34.Changes: None.Comment: One commenter, whonoted that its students enter a programat multiple points during the year, askedthe Department to clarify how tocalculate a student’s ‘‘pace’’ towardprogram completion under proposed§ 668.34(a)(5)(ii). This commenter alsoasked whether full time or part timeenrollment should be used to calculatepace toward completion under theseregulations. Another commenter askedthe Department to clarify how pacerelates to maximum timeframe underthese regulations. This commenterquestioned whether a time componentof weeks or months to programcompletion needed to be part of thepace measurement. Another commenterexpressed concern that proposed§ 668.34(a)(5) is less clear than a strictpercentage of completion policy. Thiscommenter, who came up with a 67percent minimum required completionrate when applying the pace formulaand the maximum timeframerequirements to the normal BAgraduation requirements, argued thatthe Department should revise theregulations to list the minimumcompletion rate that would allow astudent to complete his or her programin a 150 percent maximum timeframe(67 percent completion in thecommenter’s calculation).This commenter also stated that anyinstitution that had a stricter thanminimum SAP policy, such as higherrequired completion rates, should beallowed to use the financial aid warningstatus, even if it only checked SAP onan annual basis. The commenter statedthat this would allow those institutionswith stricter policies and highcompletion rates to use the flexibilityoffered through the use of the financialaid warning status.Discussion: Proposed § 668.34(a)(5)(i),together with the definition ofmaximum timeframe in § 668.34(b),defines ‘‘pace’’ for purposes of SAPevaluations; it is the pace at which astudent must progress through his or hereducational program to ensure that thestudent will complete the programVerDate Mar2010 14:10 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29OCR2.SGM 29OCR2within the maximum timeframe andprovides for measurement of thestudent’s progress at each SAPevaluation. Proposed § 668.34(a)(5)(ii)provides the formula that an institutionmust use at each SAP evaluation tocalculate pace: divide the cumulativenumber of hours the student hassuccessfully completed by thecumulative number of hours the studenthas attempted. This calculation is to beused regardless of the student’senrollment status, as the formula isdesigned to measure completionappropriately for each studentregardless of whether that studentattends full time or part time. TheDepartment believes that theserequirements for measuring pace towardprogram completion provide maximumflexibility for both students andinstitutions. Students are free to attendat whatever enrollment status isappropriate for them, and institutionscan measure the pace as appropriate fortheir students. Because a graduated pacestandard (i.e., 50 percent the first year,60 percent the second year, and 70percent every year thereafter) ispermissible, the Department does notbelieve it is appropriate to regulate aspecific completion rate for all studentsin all programs at all institutions.Changes: None.Transfer CreditsComment: Several commenters statedthat, for purposes of calculating pacetoward program completion under§ 668.34(a)(5), transfer credits shouldonly count in the completed hourscategory, but not the attempted hourscategory, because those credits were nottaken at the institution determiningSAP. Another commenter stated thattransfer credits should only be countedin the attempted hours category but notthe completed hours category. Onecommenter requested clarification as towhether the requirement in§ 668.34(a)(6) to count transfer credits asboth attempted and completed meansthat institutions are required to requestand evaluate all applicable transcripts.Discussion: Whether or not aninstitution evaluates the transcripts ofall coursework taken by a student atprevious institutions is a decision left tothe institution. The Department has notrequired institutions to requesttranscripts for previously completedwork, and is not doing so now.However, in so much as credits taken atanother institution are accepted towardsthe student’s academic program underthe institution’s academic requirements,we do believe it is appropriate toinclude those credits in both theattempted and completed hours