U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–942 PDF 2011

EDUCATION REGULATIONS: FEDERAL 

OVERREACH INTO ACADEMIC AFFAIRS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION 

AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 11, 2011 

Serial No. 112–11 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Richard L. Hanna, New York 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania 

[Vacant] 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii 

Barrett Karr, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Richard L. Hanna, New York 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ranking Minority Member 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

David Wu, Oregon 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

George Miller, California 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 11, 2011 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Andrews, Hon. Robert E., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Jersey, submission for the record: 

Letter, dated Feb. 16, 2011, to Secretary Duncan, from the American 

Council on Education (ACE) ................................................................. 77 

Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Higher Education 

and Workforce Training ............................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Letter, dated Mar. 10, 2011, from the American Council on Education ...................................................................................................... 73 

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n, ranking member, Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training .................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania, submission for the record: 

Letter, dated Mar. 1, 2011, to Secretary Duncan from Citizens 

for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) ................ 39 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Dowden, G. Blair, president, Huntington University .................................... 12 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

Ebersole, John, president, Excelsior College .................................................. 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Tighe, Kathleen S., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education ...... 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18 

Supplemental material submitted for the record ................................... 81 

Wolff, Ralph A., president, the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) ................................................................................................. 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21 

Additional submissions: 

Memo, dated June 30, 2010, ‘‘State by State Analysis (34 C.F.R. 

§ 600.9)’’ ........................................................................................... 25 

Letter, dated Mar. 2, 2011, to Secretary Duncan ............................ 31 

Letter, dated Feb. 16, 2011, to Secretary Duncan ........................... 77 

(1) 

EDUCATION REGULATIONS: FEDERAL 

OVERREACH INTO ACADEMIC AFFAIRS 

Friday, March 11, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Foxx, Kline, Petri, Thompson, Hinojosa, 

Tierney, Bishop, Andrews, and Davis. 

Staff present: Katherine Bathgate, Press Assistant; James 

Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services Policy; 

Colette Beyer, Press Secretary-Education; Kirk Boyle, General 

Counsel; Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services Coordinator; Daniela Garcia, Professional Staff Member; Jimmy Hopper, 

Legislative Assistant; Amy Raaf Jones, Education Policy Counsel 

and Senior Advisor; Barrett Karr, Staff Director; Brian Melnyk, 

Legislative Assistant; Mandy Schaumburg, Education and Human 

Services Oversight Counsel; Linda Stevens, Chief Clerk/Assistant 

to the General Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Aaron 

Albright, Minority Deputy Communications Director; Tylease Alli, 

Minority Hearing Clerk; Daniel Brown, Minority Staff Assistant; 

John English, Minority Presidential Management Fellow; Jamie 

Fasteau, Minority Deputy Director of Education Policy; Brian 

Levin, Minority New Media Press Assistant; Megan O’Reilly, Minority General Counsel; Julie Peller, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Melissa Salmanowitz, Minority Press Secretary; Laura 

Schifter, Minority Senior Education and Disability Policy Advisor; 

and Michael Zola, Minority Chief Investigative Counsel. 

Chairwoman FOXX [presiding]. Good morning. A quorum being 

present, the subcommittee will come to order. I want to welcome 

everyone to the subcommittee’s first hearing of the 112th Congress. 

And I want to give a special thanks to our witnesses for being 

with us today. We appreciate your time and look forward to your 

testimony. We are here this morning to examine burdensome regulations imposed on institutions of higher education and accrediting 

bodies via the Department of Education. 

We can all agree today that the United States has the finest 

higher education system in the world and it draws students from 
2 

all around the globe. But we are also aware of the strain federal 

regulations can place on schools. 

In this era of limited resources these regulations can serve to distract schools from efficiently delivering services to their students. 

That means onerous mandates force institutions to dedicate scarce 

resources towards compliance instead of focusing on meeting student needs. 

At a time when we should be encouraging common sense education reforms, more regulatory hurdles serve only to undermine 

the strength of the nation’s education system. 

In late 2010 the administration introduced regulations on 14 separate higher education issues. While many of these new regulations 

inject the federal government into areas that have historically been 

the responsibility of the states or institutions of higher education. 

Two of them are particularly alarming; the new state authorization regulation forces states to follow federal requirements when 

deciding whether to grant a college or university permission to operate within the state. 

Many institutions fear this is only the beginning of the federal 

government and states exercising more control over their colleges 

and universities. 

For schools providing distance education programs this regulation could require them to obtain authorization in every state 

where an enrolled student resides to participate in the federal student aid programs. 

Even if a school has just one student from a state enrolled in an 

online program, the institution will still be required to go through 

the process of obtaining authorization in that state. 

Schools with more advanced online education opportunities could 

be forced to deal with this process in all 50 states. Another worrisome regulation creates the first federal definition of a credit hour 

and requires specific criteria to be used when assessing an institution’s definition of a credit hour. 

School officials are concerned that this regulation will restrict 

their ability to determine the number of credit hours for each 

course, an inherently academic function. While the credit hour is 

important to the distribution of federal student assistance, institutions of higher education fear they will be required to check in with 

the government before creating courses and programs eligible for 

such funding. 

To make matters worse, very little information exists on how 

these regulatory changes could affect students. The state authorization regulation could restrict the student’s ability to enroll in a 

distance education program if the school is not recognized as an accredited online institution in his or her state. The credit hour regulation also stands to restrict the efficiency and productivity at an 

institution by limiting their ability to create innovative ways to 

educate students in shorter periods of time. 

Many institutions of higher education have been left in the dark 

on how to proceed. In fact we have just received a letter from the 

American Council on Education asking us to request the delay of 

one year of these regulations because of the confusion. 

Unless the Department can provide some clarifying guidance before the July 1, 2011 deadline, schools, states, and accreditors will 
3 

be left to wonder whether their inability to comply with the unclear 

regulations will jeopardize schools eligibility to receive federal financial aid. 

As such, a delay or complete withdrawal, actually, may be the 

appropriate action here. 

These regulations constitute a federal overreach into academic 

affairs. Like many other burdensome government mandates, both 

reduce local control and create uncertainty in the higher education 

system. 

Escalated intervention by Washington bureaucrats has done little to fix the problems in our education system. Instead of more 

regulations we need to support policies that streamline the government’s role in education and provide for more flexibility for states 

and education institutions. 

We look forward to hearing your thoughts on federal regulations 

like these and gaining your perspective on what should be done in 

Washington to decrease their negative impact. 

I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Ruben Hinojosa 

for his opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairwoman Foxx follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on 

Higher Education and Workforce Training 

A quorum being present, the subcommittee will come to order. 

Welcome everyone to the subcommittee’s first hearing of the 112th Congress. I 

would like to thank our witnesses for being with us today. We appreciate your time 

and look forward to your testimony. 

We are here this morning to examine burdensome regulations imposed on institutions of higher education and accrediting bodies by the Department of Education. 

We can all agree today that the United States has the finest higher education system in the world, which draws students from around the globe. But we are also all 

aware of the strain federal regulations can place on schools. In this era of limited 

resources, these regulations can serve to distract schools from efficiently delivering 

services to their students. That means onerous mandates force institutions to dedicate scarce resources toward compliance instead of focusing on meeting student 

needs. At a time when we should be encouraging common sense education reforms, 

more regulatory hurdles serve only to undermine the strength of the nation’s education system. 

In late 2010, the administration introduced regulations on 14 separate higher 

education issues. While many of these new regulations inject the federal government 

into areas that have historically been the responsibility of the states or institutions 

of higher education, two of them are particularly alarming. 

The new state authorization regulation forces states to follow federal requirements when deciding whether to grant a college or university permission to operate 

within the state. Many institutions fear this is only the beginning of the federal government and states exercising more control over their colleges and universities. For 

schools providing distance education programs, this regulation could require them 

to obtain authorization in every state where an enrolled student resides to participate in the federal student aid programs. Even if a school has just one student from 

a state enrolled in an online program, the institution will still be required to go 

through the process of obtaining authorization in that state. Schools with more advanced online education opportunities could be forced to deal with this process in 

all fifty states. 

Another worrisome regulation creates the first federal definition of a credit hour 

and requires specific criteria to be used when assessing an institution’s definition 

of a credit hour. School officials are concerned that this regulation will restrict their 

ability to determine the number of credit hours for each course, an inherently academic function. While the credit hour is important to the distribution of federal student assistance, institutions of higher education fear they will be required to check 

in with the government before creating courses and programs eligible for such funding. 
4 

To make matters worse, very little information exists on how these regulatory 

changes could affect students. The state authorization regulation could restrict a 

student’s ability to enroll in a distance education program if the school is not recognized as an accredited online institution in his or her state. The credit hour regulation also stands to restrict efficiency and productivity at an institution by limiting 

their ability to create innovative ways to educate students in shorter periods of 

time. 

Many institutions of higher education have been left in the dark on how to proceed. In fact, we have just received a letter from the American Council on Education 

asking us to request a delay of one year of these regulations because of the confusion. Unless the department can provide some clarifying guidance before the July 

1, 2011 deadline, schools, states, and accreditors will be left to wonder whether their 

inability to comply with the unclear regulations will jeopardize schools’ eligibility to 

receive federal financial aid. As such, a delay—or complete withdrawal actually— 

may be the appropriate action here. 

These regulations constitute a federal overreach into academic affairs. Like many 

other burdensome government mandates, both reduce local control and create uncertainty in the higher education system. Escalated intervention by Washington bureaucrats has done little to fix the problems in our education system. Instead of 

more regulations, we need to support policies that streamline the government’s role 

in education and provide for more flexibility for states and education institutions. 

We look forward to hearing your thoughts on federal regulations like these and 

gaining your perspective on what should be done in Washington to decrease their 

negative impact. I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member, Rube ́n Hinojosa, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you Chairwoman Foxx. Today our discussion will focus on two vitally important regulations; the definition 

of a credit hour and the criteria the secretary uses to determine 

that institutions are authorized to provide post-secondary education in their states. 

In my view, these regulations are greatly needed to strengthen 

the accountability and review of institutions of higher education 

that participate in the federal student aid programs. Every year 

the federal government spends billions of dollars on student financial aid. It is imperative that Congress and the Department of Education provide strong oversight for these federal student dollars. 

On May 24, 2010 the Office of the Inspector General, the IG, 

issued a review of the Higher Learning Commission, I will refer to 

it as HLC, of the North Central Association of Colleges and 

Schools. I continue to be troubled by what the Inspector General 

found in its review. 

The IG’s report raised serious concerns about the HLC’s accrediting practices and the evaluation of Title IV institutions. Specifically the report highlighted the case of American Intercontinental 

University, an institution which HLC approved for accreditation on 

May 14, 2009, despite finding that AIU had assigned about double 

the amount of credit hours in certain undergraduate and graduate 

programs. 

To avoid having institutions overstate credit hours or inflate the 

federal student aid paid for students attending those programs we 

must have consistent measures for credit hours. 

The regulation being discussed today sets some minimum standard for the work needed to equal a credit hour for the purposes of 

federal student aid programs. The rule defines a credit hour as 

‘‘one hour of classroom instruction and 2 hours of homework each 

week for approximately 15 weeks per semester or 10 to 12 weeks 

for one-quarter hour of credit. Or, an equivalent amount of work.’’ 
5 

The regulation also requires accrediting agencies to review an institution’s procedures and policies setting credit hours and determine whether such policies and procedures meet the regulatory 

standard. 

I would also like to underscore that the credit hour definition 

creates some flexibilities for institutions in determining the appropriate number of credit hours for student course work. 

The credit hour definition is a minimum standard that does not 

restrict an institution from setting a higher standard that requires 

more student work per credit hour. The definition does not dictate 

particular amounts of classroom time versus out of class student 

work. And the institution may take into consideration alternative 

delivery methods; measurements of student work, academic calendars, disciplines and degree levels. 

In addition, an institution may use separate measures of credit 

hours for the federal student aid programs and for its own academic purposes or other institutional needs. 

In regard to state authorization, the Higher Education Act of 

1965 has always required an institution to be legally authorized to 

offer a program of education beyond secondary education by the 

state in which it is located. Under that rule a state must have a 

process to review and act on complaints concerning that institution, 

including enforcing applicable state laws. 

The regulation also provides students, prospective students and 

families the ability to identify which institutions are legally authorized to offer post-secondary education in a state. 

An institution offering distance education to students located in 

states other than the one in which the institution is located for example, must meet the authorization requirements of those states. 

Finally, religious institutions exempted from state authorization 

requirements under state law are exempt from this regulation. 

In closing, I believe that we as members of this committee must 

address these issues and protect the interest of students and taxpayers. 

As ranking member for this subcommittee, I intend to be fully 

engaged in these discussions and will work with the Secretary and 

my colleagues in both the House and the Senate to ensure that 

these regulations are implemented. 

With that, Madam Chair, I yield. 

[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rube ́n Hinojosa, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

Thank you Chairwoman Foxx. 

Today, our discussion will focus on two vitally important regulations: the definition of a credit hour and the criteria the Secretary uses to determine that institutions are authorized to provide postsecondary education in their states. 

In my view, these regulations are greatly needed to strengthen the accountability 

and review of institutions of higher education that participate in the Federal Student Aid programs. Every year, the federal government spends billions of dollars on 

student financial aid. It is imperative that Congress and the Department of Education provide strong oversight for these federal student aid dollars. 

On May 24, 2010, the Office of the Inspector General (IG) issued a review of the 

Higher Learning Commission (HLC) of the North Central Association of Colleges 

and Schools. I continue to be troubled by what the Inspector General found in its 

review. 
6 

The IG’s report raised serious concerns about the HLC’s accrediting practices and 

evaluation of Title IV institutions. Specifically, the report highlighted the case of 

American Intercontinental University(AIU), an institution which HLC approved for 

accreditation on May 14, 2009 despite finding that AIU had assigned about double 

the amount of credit hours to courses in certain undergraduate and graduate programs. 

To avoid having institutions overstate credit hours or inflate the federal student 

aid paid for students attending those programs, we must have consistent measures 

for credit hours. 

The regulation being discussed today sets a minimum standard for the work needed to equal a credit hour for the purposes of Federal Student Aid Programs. 

The rule defines a credit hour as one hour of classroom instruction and two hours 

of homework each week for approximately 15 weeks for a semester or 10-12 weeks 

for one quarter hour of credit, or an equivalent amount of work. The regulation also 

requires accrediting agencies to review an institution’s procedures and policies setting credit hours and determine whether such policies and procedures meet the regulatory standard. 

I would also like to underscore that the credit hour definition creates some flexibilities for institutions in determining the appropriate amount of credit hours for 

student coursework. 

The credit hour definition is a minimum standard that does not restrict an institution from setting a higher standard that requires more student work per credit 

hour. 

The definition does not dictate particular amounts of classroom time versus outof-class student work, and the institution may take into consideration alternative 

delivery methods, measurements of student work, academic calendars, disciplines, 

and degree levels. 

In addition, an institution may use separate measures of credit hours for the federal student aid programs and for its own academic purposes or other institutional 

needs. 

In regard to state authorization, the Higher Education Act of 1965 has always required an institution to be legally authorized to offer a program of education beyond 

secondary education by the State in which it is located. 

Under the rule, a State must have a process to review and act on complaints concerning the institution, including enforcing applicable State laws. The regulation 

also provides students, prospective students, and families the ability to identify 

which institutions are legally authorized to offer postsecondary education in a State. 

An Institution offering distance education to students located in States other than 

the one in which the institution is located, for example, must meet the authorization 

requirements of those States. 

Finally, religious institutions exempted from State authorization requirements 

under State law are exempt from this regulation. 

In closing, I believe that we as the members of this committee must address these 

issues and protect the interests of students and taxpayers. As Ranking Member for 

this subcommittee, I intend to be fully engaged in these discussions and will work 

with the Secretary and my colleagues in both the House and the Senate to ensure 

that these regulations are implemented. 

Questions for the Panelists: 

I would like to welcome our distinguished guests and say that I am pleased to 

see that Kathleen Tighe, the Inspector General, is here today. 

1. Question for Inspector General Kathleen Tighe (T-i-e), U.S. Department of Education: 

Ms. Tighe, in your testimony, you indicate that the explosion of on-line education 

in recent years has made it even more difficult to assign credit hours and assess 

student achievement. 

What are national and regional accrediting agencies doing to ensure that on-line 

educational programs provide quality, content, and academic rigor at the postsecondary level? 

2. Question for Inspector General Kathleen Tighe: 

Ms. Tighe, in your testimony, you indicate that the definition of a credit hour protects students and taxpayers from inflated credit hours, the improper designation 

of full-time student status, the over-awarding of Federal Student aid funds, and excessive borrowing by students especially with distance, accelerated, and other programs not delivered through traditional classroom format. 

What type of impact do you believe this regulation will have on regional and national accrediting agencies? 
7 

What can regional and national accrediting agencies do to improve their accreditation practices to ensure that students and taxpayers receive what they are paying 

for? 

3. Question for Ralph A. Wolff, President of the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges 

(WASC): 

Mr. Wolff, absent a definition of a credit hour, what do your accreditation teams 

evaluate on campus to assess institutional assignment of credit hours? 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much Mr. Hinojosa. Pursuant to Committee Rule 7 C, all subcommittee members will be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record. 

And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 

14 days, to allow statements, questions for the record and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing, to be submitted 

in the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses; Mr. John Ebersole serves as the President of Excelsior College and has over 40 years of education experience. Prior to his current appointment Mr. Ebersole has held positions responsible for 

extended and online education at Boston University; Colorado 

State University; The University of California, Berkley and; John 

F. Kennedy University. 

Mr. Ebersole is also the current chair of the American Council 

on Education’s Commission on Lifelong Learning. 

Dr. G. Blair Dowden has served as President of Huntington University since 1991. He has previously served as board chair of the 

Council for Christian Colleges and Universities; chair of the Council of Presidents of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics and is chair of the Indiana Conference for Higher Education. 

In addition to his impressive career, he is a frequent speaker on 

topics related to leadership, philanthropy, and Christian Faith. 

The Honorable Kathleen Tighe was sworn in as the Inspector 

General for the Department of Education on March 17, 2010. Prior 

to this she served as the Deputy Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and as counsel to the Inspector General 

Services Administration. 

Ms. Tighe is a member of the public contract section of the American Bar Association and is a former chair of the Council of Councils to the Inspector General. That is almost a tongue twister. 

Mr. Ralph Wolff has been at the Senior College Commission of 

the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, WASC, for 30 

years and was appointed president in 1996. In that capacity he has 

led WASC to the forefront of accreditation as an agent of public accountability and innovation. 

At the national level he has been appointed to represent regional 

accreditation in negotiated rule making sessions held by the Department of Education in 2006, 2008, and 2010. Did they give you 

combat pay for that? 

Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony let me 

briefly explain our lighting system. You will each have 5 minutes 

to present your testimony. When you begin the light in front of you 

will turn green. 
8 

When 1 minute is left the light will turn yellow and when your 

time has expired the light will turn red. At which point I would ask 

that you wrap up your remarks as best you are able. 

After everyone has testified members will each have 5 minutes 

to ask questions of the panel. And I will tell you that they have 

announced that we will probably have votes around 12 to 12:30 and 

I said earlier it is something to see when everyone is trying to vote 

and get out on a Friday afternoon. 

So I am hoping that we can move things along and not have an 

unseemingly exodus from the room. So I want to thank you all 

again for taking the time to testify before the committee today. 

I want to ask Mr. Hinojosa if he has any other comments he 

would like to make. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Not at this time. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. 

Now, I would like Mr. Ebersole if he would begin. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN EBERSOLE, PRESIDENT, 

EXCELSIOR COLLEGE 

Mr. EBERSOLE. I am John Ebersole, President of Excelsior College. I would like to thank you Chairwoman Virginia Fox and also 

Ranking Member Ruben Hinojosa and members of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, for the 

opportunity to testify on these unnecessary regulations. 

Founded by the State of New York’s Board of Regents as Regents 

College in 1971 and chartered as a private not for profit institution 

in 1998, the college was renamed Excelsior College in 2001. We are 

based in Albany, New York, accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and we are a recognized leader in removing obstacles to the educational goals of adult learners. 

We provide efficient, affordable access to higher education 

through multiple avenues of degree completion. Excelsior provides 

distance learning opportunities to adult learners with an emphasis 

on those historically underrepresented in higher education. 

I should say that 30 percent of our students of which there are 

30,000, represent themselves as being minorities. We also have 

about 10,000 Iraq duty military. 

The college meets students where they are academically and geographically, offering quality instruction in the assessment of prior 

learning. We share the stated goals of this administration and the 

previous administration to increase degree completion over the 

next 10 years. We understand that is necessary to maintain our 

economy and to be competitive in a global market. 

I believe that online institutions have the capacity to deliver that 

access to students who would not receive a quality education under 

other circumstances. This is a time when the traditional brick and 

mortar public institutions are cutting enrollment, reducing access 

and increasing costs. 

In the 2010 Sloan Survey of Online Learning, we found that online enrollments have risen by almost 1 million students from a 

year ago. That report also found that three-quarters of institutions 

report the economic downturn has increased demand for online 

courses and programs. Nearly 30 percent of those in higher edu-
9 

cation, of which estimate at 19 million today, now take at least one 

course online. 

The 21 percent growth rate for online enrollments far exceeds 

the 2 percent growth rate in the overall higher education population. Seventy-nine percent of college presidents agreed that 

launching and expanding online education courses and programs 

provides a way for their institutions to serve more learners. A recent survey done by Inside Higher Education found that threequarters of presidents have plans to enter the online market as a 

part of their future strategy. 

In regard to state authorization, every institution is authorized 

to operate in its home state. In the case of Excelsior, we are chartered by the New York State Board of Regents, which I believe is 

the only state agency which is recognized by the U.S. Department 

of Education as an accrediting agency in its own right. 

We also hold Middle States accreditation and the new federal 

regulations would require Excelsior to not only have that accreditation that we document that we are authorized to operate in 54 jurisdictions recognized by the United States Department of Education. 

Under Title 4, the new regulations require all colleges to comply 

with individual state regulations to distance learning if they have 

enrolled 1 or more students receiving student financial aid. 

Failure of an institution to comply with these state authorization 

rules may result in institutional penalties ranging from a return of 

all federal financial aid distributed while out of compliance, up to 

removal of the institution’s authorization to participate in Title 4. 

Due to a lack of, what I believe is forethought, the proposed state 

authorization regulations from the Department would create a particular roadblock for those of us in online education at a time 

where I believe it is most needed. 

Excelsior has led the President’s Forum, a consortium of public 

and private institutions with a shared mission of serving adult students that are distance, for 7 years. 

We have been trying to advance the innovative practices and the 

excellence that can be a part of online learning. You should know 

that even before these regulations were promulgated we were 

working with the states trying to bring about greater uniformity 

and standardization between the 50 states. 

We continue to be at a loss as to why these regulations, running 

directly contrary to the shared, stated goals of the administration 

and to thousands of higher education institutions across the country have been put forward. 

As written, the regulation would unfairly target and stifle the 

growth of online education options for students, particularly of nonprofit institutions. We support the right and responsibility of states 

to regulate the quality and nature of the education being delivered 

within their borders, work that we have been trying to advance. 

However, the regulation on state authorization essentially places 

the federal government in the role of enforcing state statutes would 

force a state to create a new regulatory regime and make an additional financial burden at a time when many states do not have the 

funds, capacity or structure to comply with this regulation. And 

they certainly will not have such by July 1st of this year. 
10 

1 Allen, I. Elaine and Jeff Seaman. Class Differences, Online Education in the United States, 

2010. Babson Survey Research Group, 2010. 2Green, Kenneth C., Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman. Presidential Perspectives: The 2011 

Inside Higher Ed Survey of College and University Presidents. Inside Higher Ed, 2011. 

One state has already said publicly that it could not consider applications in its state for at least a year to determine how it will 

even respond. Another has stated that upon receipt of our application it will require 6 to 9 months of review and then be subjected 

to the second review if any of the education leads to licensure within that state. 

Furthermore, there is no way to guarantee that an institution 

has met the Department’s interpretation of any state’s regulations 

and no way for the institution to ensure it would satisfy these federal interpretations if audited. 

These uncertainties will stifle innovation and force accredited, 

not-for-profit institutions with legitimate and creative distance education programs to withdraw from certain jurisdictions potentially 

leaving the students with the greatest need with a few options to 

further their education. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Ebersole follows:] 

Prepared Statement of John Ebersole, President, Excelsior College 

Good morning. I am John Ebersole, President of Excelsior College. I would like 

to thank Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, Ranking Member Ruben Hinojosa, and members of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training for the opportunity to testify on these unnecessary proposed regulations. 

Founded by the State of New York Board of Regents as Regents College in 1971 

and chartered as a private, nonprofit institution in 1998, the College was renamed 

Excelsior College in 2001. Excelsior College is based in Albany, NY and accredited 

by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. We are a recognized leader 

in removing obstacles to the educational goals of the adult learner. We provide efficient and affordable access to higher education through multiple avenues to degree 

completion. Excelsior College provides distant learning opportunities to adult learners with an emphasis on those historically underrepresented in higher education. 

The College meets students where they are—academically and geographically, offering quality instruction and the assessment of prior learning. 

We share the stated goals of this Administration and the previous Administration 

to increase degree completion over the next ten years to maintain our economy and 

be competitive in the global market. I believe that online learning institutions have 

the capacity to deliver that access to those students that would not receive a quality 

education under any other circumstances. This is a time when the traditional brick 

and mortar public institutions are cutting enrollment, reducing access and increasing their costs. In fact, The 2010 Sloan Survey of Online Learning reveals that online enrollment rose by almost one million students from a year ago. The report also 

found that: 

• Three-quarters of institutions report that the economic downturn has increased 

demand for online courses and programs. 

• Nearly thirty percent of higher education students now take at least one course 

online 

• The 21% growth rate for online enrollments far exceeds the 2% growth in the 

overall higher education student population.1

• 78.1% of College Presidents agreed that launching/expanding online education 

courses and programs provide a way for institutions to serve more learners.2

State Authorization 

Every institution is authorized to operate in its home state. In the case of Excelsior College, we are chartered by the New York State Board of Regents (one of the 

accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Department of Education), and the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. These new federal state authorization 

regulations would require Excelsior College to document that it is also authorized 

to operate in all 54 jurisdictions recognized by the United States Department of 
11 

Education. Federal Title IV regulations require all colleges to comply with individual state regulations related to distance learning in which they have enrolled one 

or more students receiving federal student financial aid. Failure of an institution 

to comply with these state authorization rules may result in institutional penalties 

ranging from return of all federal financial aid distributed while out of compliance 

up to removal of the institution’s authorization to participate in Title IV funding. 

Due to a lack of forethought, the proposed State Authorization regulation from the 

Department of Education would create a road block for online education, perhaps 

at a time when it is needed the most. Excelsior has led the Presidents’ Forum, a 

consortium of public and private institutions with a shared mission of serving adult 

students at a distance, for seven years with the goal of advancing innovative practice and excellence in online learning. We continue to be at a loss as to why these 

regulations run directly contrary to the shared, stated goals of the Administration 

and thousands of higher education institutions across the country. As written, the 

regulation would unfairly target and stifle the growth of online education options 

for students. 

We support the right and responsibility of states to regulate the quality and nature of the education being delivered within their borders. However, the regulation 

on State Authorization essentially places the federal government into the role of enforcing state statutes and would force a state to create a new regulatory regime and 

take on additional financial burden when some states do not have the funds, capacity or structure to comply with this regulation by July 1, 2011. One state has already indicated that it could take a year to determine how it will respond. Furthermore, there is no way to guarantee that an institution has met the department’s 

interpretation of any state’s regulations and no way for the institution to ensure it 

would satisfy these federal interpretations if audited. These uncertainties would stifle innovation and force accredited institutions with legitimate and creative distance 

education programs to withdraw from certain jurisdictions, leaving the students 

with the greatest need with little option to further their education. 

It is impossible to predict the future skills that our workforce will need. In order 

to properly prepare our students for this ever-changing landscape, our higher education curriculums need to be innovative and adapt to those changes. 

Impacts to Excelsior College 

Excelsior represents at least one student in all 54 jurisdictions that are recognized 

by the Department of Education. The federal state authorization regulations would 

require Excelsior to review each individual state’s rules and regulations and to document that Excelsior College is in compliance with those rules in each jurisdiction 

where it is serving Title IV recipients. In order to be fully compliant, we would have 

to either complete the authorization process within each state or produce documentation for states where this would not be necessary. We have estimated that the 

average cost for authorization is approximately $2,500 per state. There are some 

states that have a fee much lower than this number but there are also states where 

costs would exceed tens of thousands of dollars. In considering these demands, Excelsior College will have to budget $150,000-200,000 per year to comply with these 

federal mandates. When those costs are multiplied by nearly 3,000 institutions offering online education, this sector is looking at least a half a billion dollars cost of 

compliance. These additional costs to institutions will undoubtedly be passed on to 

students in the form of increased tuition and fees. That will raise the cost of learning and deter access. 

Arkansas is an example of a state that is very granular in its approval process. 

We are required to provide details on every program, course, faculty member, credit 

determination, and projected outcomes. For instance, in the case of our faculty members, Excelsior College was required to provide an individual form describing the 

qualifications of each faculty member teaching students in the state of Arkansas for 

review. All of these disclosures take time and man power. In the case of Arkansas, 

Excelsior spent in excess of 400 man hours preparing over 400 pages for submission. 

As a result of these burdensome, costly and vague regulations, students from 

around the country will be denied access to the high-quality college programs as 

many reputable accredited institutions, such as Excelsior, discontinue their distance 

learning programs or limit them only to states with larger enrollments. As the delivery of online courses becomes limited and problematic for legitimate colleges, many 

students will turn to less reputable, locally based, non-accredited schools for their 

degree. This would clearly cheapen the education offered to those students in need. 

Excelsior’s student body is very diverse and we educate many students enlisted 

in the military. These students and their families are frequently transferred to different states based on their position. Currently, they are able to continue their education and not miss class time following a transfer. However, should this regulation 
12 

take effect, those military spouses could be transferred to a state that has not authorized Excelsior and they would not be able to continue their coursework. 

By explicitly defining a credit hour, our education system regresses by looking at 

the input rather than using a more forward looking approach that evaluates learning outcomes. The proposed definition of a credit hour will further block and limit 

innovation in higher education. President Obama recently applauded the creation of 

an accelerated learning program at Carnegie Mellon for its innovative online 

courses. They have found that students can learn more quickly with specially designed online courses. These regulations would have killed that program. By attempting to impose a single definition, the Department would be inserting itself in 

academic judgments made at the departmental and institutional level. It is of note 

that Federal law prohibits the Department from interfering in academic decisions 

without explicit Congressional authorization. 

Impacts to Growth of Online Education Industry 

For those institutions that are examining and creating online education programs, 

these regulations will give them great pause whether to continue that development 

or abandon the endeavor all together. These institutions will not want to risk their 

Title IV funding based on a confusing regulatory market for online programs. As 

the capacity for higher education decreases among the traditional sources of learning, we should be promoting online programs and services that can help those in 

need to further their education. 

Conclusion 

The resulting ambiguity and confusion over these requirements will limit responsible innovation by institutions at the very time that the Administration is seeking 

new routes to academic achievement. 

It is our hope that you will ask the Department of Education to re-evaluate the 

rule it has adopted and to see how the rule can be amended to avoid the unintended 

consequences of the current approach. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much Mr. Ebersole. 

Dr. Dowden? 

STATEMENT OF G. BLAIR DOWDEN, PRESIDENT, 

HUNTINGTON UNIVERSITY 

Mr. DOWDEN. Good morning Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking 

Member Hinojosa. 

I appreciate your invitation to share my concerns about the program integrity issue regulations. My name is Blair Dowden, I am 

President of Huntington University in Huntington, Indiana, and I 

have served in that capacity for the past 20 years. 

I am a past board chair of the Council for Christian Colleges and 

Universities and I have personally served as board member of the 

National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. 

As a president of a private college I am concerned about the wide 

sweeping regulatory overreach that these regulations signal. The 

American higher education system is the best in the world largely 

because of its independence, innovation, and creativity. These regulations work to undermine these characteristics. 

Certainly, colleges and universities should be held accountable 

for their work and the expenditure of federal funds, in fact earlier 

this year, just about a month ago Huntington University was visited by the U.S. Department of Education for a routine review of 

our Title IV programs. After a week of review the Department representatives indicated that we were very clean in our operation and 

management of our Title IV funds. I believe that this type of oversight is appropriate. 

But the increase in regulation and oversight that is contained in 

some provisions of the Department’s new program integrity regula-
13 

tions, I think, is not warranted and will severely burden colleges 

and universities. 

Specifically, two parts of these regulations are most concerning, 

the state authorization and credit hour provisions which are the 

topics of this hearing. 

The federal definition of a credited hour inserts the federal government squarely into one of the most sacrosanct elements of higher education. I believe that it is very problematic for the federal 

government to impose a one-size-fits-all definition of a credited 

hour. For instance, a scientific laboratory class is different than 

practicing a musical instrument which is different again than engaging in a business practicum. 

I strongly believe that is the colleges, universities, and accrediting organizations, and not the government, that are best able to 

assess and quantify the learning that results from these varied experiences. 

Huntington is a private liberal arts university. We are also a 

Christian institution. Our Christ-centered mission is foundational 

to our educational purpose and forms every decision that we make. 

As president I am concerned that these new regulations have the 

potential to interfere with our faith based mission. 

In particular, the state authorization component of these regulations expands on the requirement that an institution must be authorized by the state in order to participate in Title IV funding. As 

you know, state authorization is currently required by the Higher 

Education Act, so is not at all clear to me what value would be 

added by these new, and I think, confusing requirements. 

These regulations clearly open the door for states to impose requirements that go well beyond authorizing an institution to offer 

postsecondary education. My concern is that there appears to be no 

limits to what factors a state can consider when granting or withholding authorization and no mechanisms for appeal or due process. 

As a president of a Christian institution, I am acutely aware that 

religion and religious practices can sometimes invoke strong reactions in people, reactions that sometimes motivate certain political 

positions and actions. 

The Department’s new regulations delineate a very small category of institutions that are eligible to be exempted under state 

law if indeed the state should even chose to provide a religious exemption. 

This category of schools is so narrowly defined that neither Huntington University nor any other member of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities would qualify for an exemption as 

outlined in these new regulations. 

This prospect is obviously very troubling and widely shared as a 

concern by my fellow Christian college presidents. I do not want to 

have our students’ eligibility to receive Title IV funding placed solely in the hands of a politically motivated state entity. 

In addition, the possibility exists that certain states may use this 

new state authorization requirement as leverage to achieve their 

own higher education policy agenda at the expense of institutional 

missions. For instance, a state could require a certain curriculum 

or text books in order to gain authorization potentially violating 
14 

both the academic prerogatives and religious convictions of the institutions. 

Let me conclude by assuring you that these concerns are not a 

denial for accountability and excellence in higher education. Nor 

are they out of a concern that Huntington University would not 

meet quality standards. To the contrary, Huntington University is 

ranked by U.S. News and World Report, among the Midwest’s top10 regional colleges and among the region’s top-5 best values. We 

are providing our students with an excellent education and equipping them for the future. 

Rather, I oppose these regulations because they unnecessarily 

interfere with the good work that my institution and many others 

are doing. And because they create the potential for misunderstanding, misapplication, and even mischief by politically motivated state actors. 

I appreciate your time today and look forward to your actions. 

[The statement of Mr. Dowden follows:] 

Prepared Statement of G. Blair Dowden, President, Huntington University 

Good morning Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Hinojosa: I appreciate 

your invitation to share my concerns about the ‘‘program integrity issues’’ regulations. My name is Blair Dowden, president of Huntington University in Huntington, 

Indiana, and I have served in that capacity for the last twenty years. I am a past 

Board chair of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, and I presently 

serve as a Board member of the National Association of Independent Colleges and 

Universities. I want to share my concerns with you today as the president of Huntington University—a private, accredited, four-year, Christian liberal-arts university 

and an institution whose religious character and mission is central to everything we 

are and everything we do. 

As a president of a private college, I am concerned about many specific facets of 

these regulations, but I am also concerned generally about the wide sweeping regulatory overreach that these regulations signal. As private institutions of higher 

learning come under ever-increasing regulatory burdens, we find fewer and fewer 

differences in the level of government involvement between our institutions and our 

public counterparts. The American higher education system is the best in the world 

largely because of its independence, innovation and creativity. I believe that these 

regulations work to undermine, rather than strengthen, those valuable characteristics. 

Specifically, there are two parts of these regulations that are most concerning: 

state authorization and credit hour, the topics of this hearing. I strongly believe that 

the new regulations will elevate the level of involvement by the state and federal 

governments and significantly impact one of the hallmarks and strengths of the U.S. 

higher education system, institutional autonomy. 

I am not endorsing the premise that institutions should not be held accountable 

for their work and the expenditure of federal funds. In fact, earlier this year, Huntington University was visited by the US Department of Education for a routine review of our Title IV programs. After a week of review, the Department representatives indicated that we were a ‘‘very clean’’ operation in the management of Title 

IV funds. This type of oversight is appropriate. But the dramatic increase in regulation and oversight that is contained in some provisions of the Department’s new program integrity regulations is not warranted and will severely burden our colleges 

and universities. 

One specific concern is the federal definition of the credit hour which inserts the 

federal government squarely into one of the most sacrosanct elements of higher education. Because of the diversity of institutions, programs, and methods of the delivery of academic content, I believe that it is very problematic for the federal government to impose one standard definition for and implementation of a credit hour. The 

effort to transform the credit hour into a simple accounting unit used for bookkeeping, shows, I believe, a fundamental misunderstanding of the credit hour. A 

credit hour is not only different from institution to institution, but is different even 

within an institution from program to program. A scientific laboratory class is different from practicing a musical instrument which is different from engaging in a 

business practicum. I strongly believe that it is colleges, universities and accrediting 
15 

organizations—not the government—that are best able to assess and quantify the 

learning that results from these varied experiences. 

In recent decades, there has been significant innovation in higher education, especially for adult learners. Accelerated classes, distance learning, and hybrid format 

classes have opened up doors of educational opportunity and attainment for new 

groups of students. A restrictive definition of credit hour based on seat-time alone 

would turn back the clock and discourage the kind of innovation that enables colleges and universities to serve these students. It is one thing to measure how much 

time a student spends in a classroom; it is quite another to measure how much the 

student learned. As Sylvia Manning, president of the Higher Learning Commission 

testified to the House Committee on Education and Labor on June 17, 2010, a narrow definition of credit hour would not be particularly useful in measuring the 

learning outcomes of adult students or alternative delivery systems. It would deter 

innovation in higher education and ‘‘require that colleges and universities divert resources away from helping students to demonstrating compliance with the regulation.’’ Imposing a federal definition of a credit hour would usurp the role of accrediting organizations without effectively measuring or improving academic rigor, program quality, or learning outcomes. 

Huntington is a private liberal-arts university; we are also a Christian institution. 

Our Christ-centered mission is foundational to our educational purpose and informs 

every decision that we make. As president, I am also concerned that these new regulations have potential to interfere with our faith-based mission. 

In particular, the state authorization component of these regulations expands on 

the requirement that an institution must be authorized by a State in order to participate in Title IV funding. State authorization is currently required by the Higher 

Education Act, and it is not at all clear to me what value would be added by these 

new—and confusing—requirements. However, this clearly opens the door to have 

states impose requirements that go well beyond authorizing an institution to offer 

postsecondary education. My concern is that there appear to be no limits to what 

factors a state can consider when granting or withholding authorization, and no 

mechanisms for appeal or due process. 

For instance, what if an institution were denied state authorization because of a 

practice stemming from its religious mission? This would disqualify the college or 

university from participation in Title IV programs. As the president of a Christian 

institution, I am acutely aware that religion and religious practices can sometimes 

invoke strong reactions in people, reactions that can sometimes motivate certain political positions and actions opposing religious practices and institutions. That is 

why prior higher education legislation has contained strong religious exemptions. 

The Department’s new regulations, however, do not actually create a religious exemption. Instead, they delineate a very small category of institutions that are eligible to be exempted under state law, if the state should choose to do so. This category 

of schools eligible for a state religious exemption is so narrowly defined that Huntington University and schools like us would not qualify. In fact, not one member 

of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities would qualify for an exemption as outlined by the new regulations. 

This prospect is very troubling and is widely shared as a concern by my fellow 

Christian college presidents. I do not want to have our students’ eligibility to receive 

Title IV funding placed solely in the hands of a political state entity, with no possibility of religious exemption. 

In addition, the possibility exists that certain states may use this new state authorization leverage to achieve their own higher education policy agenda at the expense of the mission of the institution. For instance a state could require certain 

curriculum or textbooks in order to gain authorization, violating both the academic 

prerogatives and religious convictions of the institutions. This would have the effect 

of putting colleges and universities in the position of choosing between state authorization and the ability to freely engage in their religious missions. 

According to some legal analysts, my state of Indiana is one of several states that 

would not be in compliance with the Department’s regulations concerning state authorization. Although Huntington University has operated effectively for more than 

a century, new legislation might be needed to establish the state authorization required by these new regulations. 

My institution was founded in 1897 and has always been recognized by the state, 

and was formally authorized by statute since 1965. There has never been a problem 

or question about its authorization. Although the Department’s new regulations require it, my state never saw a need to write institutional names into the law. It 

is unfortunate that, through a seemingly small requirement, the new rules open the 

potential for the state to take these new requirements as an opportunity to involve 
16 

iDavid L. Warren ‘‘Why Faculty Should Care about Federal Regulation of Higher Education,’’ 

Academe, July-August 1994: 19, cited in Terese Rainwater, ‘‘The Rise and Fall of SPRE: A Look 

at Failed Efforts to Regulate Postsecondary Education in the 1990s,’’ American Academic, March 

2006: 107. 

itself in areas that have not been the purview of the state before, such as curriculum or institutional mission. 

The Department’s regulations require additional state regulation and oversight, 

without any offsetting reduction in federal regulation or oversight. The burden of 

compliance will increase, driving up costs. The price of higher education goes up 

when layers of government create well-intentioned but burdensome rules and regulations. Every dollar spent on compliance is a dollar that is not being spent on educating a student to succeed and contribute to society. 

This scenario brings to mind past experience with the 1992 reauthorization of the 

Higher Education Act. The legislation required the establishment of a State Post 

Secondary Review Entity, or SPRE, in every state. While the effort was trumpeted 

as a way to increase accountability in higher education, the actual result was the 

multiplication of state and federal intrusions into the operations of colleges and universities. The SPRE concept severely eroded the independence of private colleges 

and universities and led to, in the words of one commentator, ‘‘haphazard and capricious regulatory enforcement.’’i In 1994, the Department of Education notified nearly 2,000 institutions that they had failed to meet certain criteria. SPRE was fiercely 

opposed by those who championed a smaller, less intrusive federal government. Fortunately, Congress defunded the SPRE project and ended implementation in March 

1995. 

Now, in 2011, it appears we are heading down the same misguided path with the 

new regulations promulgated by the Department of Education and due to be implemented in July. 

Let me conclude by assuring you that my concerns are not intended to deny the 

need for accountability and excellence in higher education, or out of a concern that 

Huntington University would not meet quality standards. To the contrary, Huntington University has a proven track record with the Department of Education, 

with our accrediting organization, and with third-party observers such as U.S. News 

& World Report, which ranks Huntington among the Midwest’s top ten regional colleges and among the region’s top five best values. Huntington University is providing our students with an excellent education and equipping them for the future. 

Rather, I oppose these regulations because they unnecessarily interfere with the 

good work that my institution and many others are doing, because they have the 

likelihood of raising costs without delivering value to students, and because they 

create the potential for misunderstanding, misapplication, and even mischief by politically motivated state actors. 

I appreciate your time here today and look forward to answering your questions. 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN TIGHE, INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Ms. TIGHE. Thank you Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member 

Hinojosa, and members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the Office of Inspector General’s work involving issues impacting the higher education community, specifically our work regarding the definition of 

a credit hour. 

Currently, the federal student aid programs are primarily dependent on the credit hour for making award decisions as are other 

forms of aid including state student aid programs and certain programs administered through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense. 

The credit hour is the most basic unit for determining the 

amount of federal student aid provided to students and funded by 

taxpayers. As the credit hour is a proxy measure of a quantity of 

student learning in exchange for financial assistance, it is in the 

federal interest to ensure that students are receiving an appro-
17 

priate amount of funding and instruction and that taxpayer money 

is being used properly. 

Last year I testified before the full committee providing an extensive view of how the need for a definition of a credit hour evolved, 

and our work involving accrediting agencies. Because the role they 

play is vital—accreditation is one of the primary requirements for 

an institution’s participation in the federal student aid programs 

and determines whether academic programs merit taxpayer’s support—the Department is dependent on accrediting agencies to ensure that institutions provide quality content and academic rigor at 

the postsecondary level as it is itself prohibited from determining 

the quality of education funded by federal dollars. 

All the Department can do with regard to evaluating the quality 

of postsecondary education, is recognize accrediting agencies as reliable authorities for the quality of education funded by federal dollars. 

In anticipation of the 2009-2010 higher education negotiated rule 

making sessions, we updated work we had previously done that examined accrediting agencies definitions of program length and 

credit hour. Again, we found that none of the accrediting agencies—the regional accrediting agencies we reviewed—defined a 

credit hour or provided guidance on the minimum requirements for 

the assignment of credit hours. 

The definition of a credit hour protects students and taxpayers 

from inflated credit hours, the improper designation of full-time 

student status, the over awarding of federal student aid funds, and 

excessive borrowing by students, especially with distance, accelerated and other programs not delivered through the traditional 

classroom format. 

As the Department is prohibited from developing the minimum 

criteria for an accrediting agency’s standards for accreditation or 

making determinations on curriculum and educational quality, it is 

not unreasonable for the Department to expect an accrediting agency to have developed its own minimum standards. 

The Department’s new definition of a credit hour is based on the 

current funding assumption that a full-time student is academically engaged full time. To the extent that a full-time student is not 

expected by an institution or the institution’s accrediting agency to 

be academically engaged on a full-time basis, federal student aid 

may in fact be over awarded. 

The OHE is required by the Inspector General Act to review and 

make recommendations regarding proposed regulations and statutes. In fulfilling this role we have provided the Department with 

information on a credit hour for its proposed program integrity regulations. 

Based on our work we also recommended that the definition of 

a credit hour include a requirement that accrediting agencies 

evaluate the assignment of credit hours. 

The Department’s new regulations reflect our recommendations. 

We will monitor the implementation of this and all the Department’s new regulations and we will do whatever we can to ensure 

that the new regulations assist in protecting our nation’s students, 

parents, and taxpayers. 

Thank you, very much. 
18 

[The statement of Ms. Tighe follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Kathleen S. Tighe, Inspector General, 

U.S. Department of Education 

Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the U.S. Department 

of Education (Department) Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) work involving issues 

impacting the higher education community. I appreciate the opportunity to share 

with you information on our efforts to ensure integrity and efficiency in the Federal 

student aid programs and operations. I look forward to working with this Subcommittee to help ensure these programs meet the needs of America’s students and 

families. 

In today’s testimony, I will discuss our work involving the definition of a credit 

hour—a critically important issue in the Federal student aid programs, as the 

amount of Federal student aid a student receives is based on the number of credit 

hours the student is enrolled in. This issue has become even more significant as online education has dramatically increased in recent years, making credit hour assignment difficult, and its comparison to traditional classroom delivery a challenge 

because online education generally does not involve a scheduled time or time commitment. 

Currently, the Federal student aid programs are primarily dependent on the credit hour for making award decisions, as are other forms of aid, including state student aid programs and certain programs administered through the U.S. Department 

of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense. The Department of Education has 

stated that a credit hour is a unit of measure that gives value to the level of instruction, academic rigor, and time requirements for a course taken at an educational 

institution. The credit hour is the most basic unit for determining the amount of 

Federal student aid provided to students and funded by taxpayers. A credit hour 

is a proxy measure of a quantity of student learning in exchange for financial assistance. It is in the Federal interest to ensure that students are receiving an appropriate amount of funding and instruction and that taxpayer money is being used 

properly. 

Last year, I testified before the full Committee, providing an extensive explanation of how the need for a definition of a credit hour evolved and our work involving accrediting agencies and how they approach ensuring the adequacy of the assignment of credit hours. I have attached a copy of that testimony, which provided 

a history of our work in this area, detailed our findings, and identified the need for 

a clear definition of a credit hour for the purposes of awarding Federal student aid. 

As stated in that testimony, the role of accrediting agencies is vital: accreditation 

is one of the primary requirements for an institution’s participation in the Federal 

student aid programs. 

Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) and the implementing regulations, the Department is dependent on accrediting agencies recognized by the Secretary of Education to ensure that institutions provide quality, content, and academic rigor at the postsecondary level. The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 included a provision that prohibits the Department from developing minimum regulatory criteria for an accrediting agency’s standards for accreditation. The Department of Education Organization Act prohibits the Department 

from making determinations on curriculum and educational quality. Thus, the Department is prohibited from determining the quality of education funded by Federal 

education dollars. All it can do with regard to the quality of postsecondary education 

is recognize accrediting agencies as reliable authorities for the quality of education 

funded by Federal dollars. 

One of the primary roles of the OIG is to protect Federal taxpayer dollars funding 

the Department’s programs and operations. Due to changes in the higher education 

regulations, we became concerned that the interests of students and taxpayers 

might not be protected. As a result, in 2002-2003 we examined accrediting agencies’ 

definitions of program length and a credit hour. These efforts found that none of 

the regional accrediting agencies reviewed defined a credit hour and none of the regional accrediting agencies provided guidance on the minimum requirements for the 

assignment of credit hours. While the national accrediting agencies we reviewed defined a credit hour, the definitions only included hours of instruction, not expectations for outside academic engagement. 

In anticipation of the 2009-2010 higher education negotiated rulemaking sessions, 

where the definition of a credit hour was to be discussed, OIG once again examined 

this issue in order to provide the Department with facts for its work on the definition of a credit hour and to provide information to Congress on the state of the defi-
19 

nition of a credit hour at regional accrediting agencies. Again, we found that none 

of the regional accrediting agencies we reviewed defined a credit hour and none of 

the regional accrediting agencies provided guidance on the minimum requirements 

for the assignment of credit hours. 

The definition of a credit hour protects students and taxpayers from inflated credit hours, the improper designation of full-time student status, the over-awarding of 

Federal student aid funds, and excessive borrowing by students especially with distance, accelerated, and other programs not delivered through the traditional classroom format. As the Department is prohibited from developing minimum criteria for 

an accrediting agency’s standards for accreditation or making determinations on 

curriculum and educational quality, it is not unreasonable for the Department to expect an accrediting agency to have developed its own minimum standards. 

The Federal student aid programs assume that a full-time student enrolled in 12 

credit hours is engaged in full-time study. The Department’s definition of a credit 

hour is based on the current funding assumption that a full-time student is academically engaged full-time. The Department’s definition is based on the common 

understanding that a full-time student is expected to spend 12 hours in class and 

2 hours in outside academic engagement for each hour in class, resulting in 36 

hours of academic engagement a week—the approximate equivalent of a full-time 

job. To the extent that a full-time student is not expected by an institution or the 

institution’s accrediting agency to be academically engaged on a full-time basis Federal student aid may be over-awarded. 

The OIG is required by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, to review 

and make recommendations regarding proposed regulations and statutes. In fulfilling this role, we provided the Department with information on a credit hour for 

its proposed program integrity regulations. Based on our work, we recommended 

that the definition of a credit hour include a requirement that accrediting agencies 

evaluate the assignment of credit hours to new courses and on an ongoing basis to 

evaluate whether courses offered by an institution have maintained the credit hour 

value assigned to them. The Department’s regulations reflect our advice and protect 

both students and taxpayers by including a definition of a credit hour that seeks 

to ensure equity in funding across institutions and among students based on the 

level of academic engagement and to help ensure appropriate funding based on the 

concept of a full-time student being academically engaged full-time. 

It is important to note, however, that even with strong requirements concerning 

credit hours, it could take up to 10 years to implement the regulation and for students and taxpayers to feel confident that the credit hours assigned to a course are 

appropriate and that value is being received. The regulation relies on the cycle of 

accreditation to review an institution’s compliance with the new rule, but institutions are generally only required to be reaccredited every 10 years. As such, the Department will need to be vigilant to ensure the effectiveness of this new regulation 

and determine whether further changes are needed. We will monitor the implementation of this and all of the Department’s new regulations and will do whatever we 

can to ensure that the new regulations assist in protecting our nation’s students, 

parents, and taxpayers. 

This concludes my written statement. I am happy to answer any of your questions. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mr. Wolff. 

STATEMENT OF RALPH WOLFF, PRESIDENT, 

WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES 

Mr. WOLFF. Thank you. 

Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa, members of the 

subcommittee, my name is Ralph Wolff. I have been introduced, 

the President of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. 

I want to speak about both of these regulations because not only 

did I participate in the negotiation of them and expressed concerns 

there, I have been hearing from dozens of institutions and meeting 

with state representatives who also are greatly confused and concerned about them. 

First, I would like to address the state authorization regulation, 

expressly it was stated that this was to address a problem that 
20 

arose in California several years ago. New legislation has been 

adopted so that issue has been resolved and we do not feel there 

is ample justification for the final regulation now adopted by the 

Department. 

In addition, we have several other concerns. For the first time 

the regulation establishes specific federal criteria that all states 

must conform to rather than relying on the judgment of each of the 

states for determining what is appropriate state licensure. 

Secondly, the impact of the regulation is unclear. During the 

course of negotiations we had a legal memorandum which I would 

like to submit to—for the record that found that as many as 37 

states would need to modify their licensing statutes in one way or 

another. The Department has failed to provide a list of which 

states would need to make what changes. 

That has left states confused and as I said, states are not quite 

sure what is required to come into compliance. With respect to student complaints, there is confusion what the new act or the new 

regulations, excuse me, will require states to do. 

Whether existing rules or a new process must be established and 

how it will overlap with that already required and undertaken by 

accrediting agencies. 

You have heard already about the impact on religious and faith 

based institutions and distance education programs. We are hearing from a number of institutions, of both types, expressing serious 

concern about these regulations. 

Finally, there is no provision for enforcement, how this new regulation will be enforced and how states will know they have come 

into appropriate compliance. And an entire state’s financial aid is 

at risk if compliance is not found to be in place. 

Establishing an enforcement system would be a problem in and 

of itself. In sum, this regulation fails to address a clearly stated 

problem, creates significant confusion, and will represent a major 

burden on states and institutions far exceeding the problem being 

addressed. 

Next, I would like to turn to the credit hour regulation on which 

we have spent a lot of time in negotiated rule making. Again, this 

does stem from the targeted review by the Inspector General’s Office that focused on one institution in one region. 

As reflected in earlier comments before and in the response to 

the Inspector General’s report, the accreditor had already identified 

the problem, had worked with the institution to resolve it and we 

think that the situation was effectively dealt with. 

But for the first time a federal definition is now being established for every course at every institution that receives financial 

aid, we are talking about millions of courses. Institutional accrediting agencies such as WASC must require compliance with this 

federal definition in all of our comprehensive reviews. We have several major concerns with respect to this regulation. 

First, we believe that the federal definition intrudes on the work 

of faculty across the country and will force faculty to fit their credit 

hour assignments to the federal definition rather than what they 

think is most appropriate. 

Secondly, it gives primary emphasis to seat time which is an outdated model of measuring quality. 
21 

Third, there is an enormous cost to be realized in implementing 

this, in real dollars, and a shift in focus from the most important 

goals which are to increase completions of degree programs and improving quality of learning. 

Finally, it will expand the potential of federal intrusion as the 

Department and the National Advisory Committee on the Institutional Quality question and review the effectiveness of accrediting 

review, the size of our sampling, ultimately we believe, federalizing 

the entire system of credit awards. 

We have done a lot to improve quality at WASC; other regional 

accreditors are doing the same. We believe that we have focused on 

the right issues by improving attention to completion. 

We request that, with the 70 other higher educational organizations, supporting letters introduced by The American Council of 

Education, that these two regulations be withdrawn. If not, at least 

suspended for one year, until these issues may be worked out. 

[The statement of Mr. Wolff follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Ralph A. Wolff, President, the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of 

Schools and Colleges (WASC) 

Chairwoman Foxx, ranking member Hinojosa, and members of the committee, I 

am pleased to present testimony to you today discussing regulations recently finalized by the U.S. Department of Education regarding State Authorization and the 

Credit Hour. 

My name is Ralph A. Wolff, and for the past 15 years I have served as the President of the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the 

Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). WASC is one of seven regional 

accrediting commissions, and is responsible for the accreditation of institutions in 

California, Hawaii, Guam and the historic Pacific Trust Territories. I also serve as 

vice chair of the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (C-RAC), which meets 

regularly to address policy issues affecting accreditation. On behalf of C-RAC I have 

participated as a primary or alternate negotiator in three negotiated rulemaking 

processes, most recently in 2009—10, leading to the federal regulations being discussed here today. 

During that negotiated rulemaking process, fourteen issues were debated, nine of 

which resulted in tentative agreement, including with respect to credit hour. Among 

the issues where agreement was not reached was state authorization. 

However, when the final regulations were released last year, they included significant changes to the tentative agreement related to credit hour. Nor were our concerns with respect to state authorization addressed. 

While we have appreciated the Department’s willingness to listen to our concerns 

with respect to the final regulations, I along with my regional accreditation colleagues recently joined the American Council on Education (ACE) and more than 

50 other higher education associations in submitting a letter to the Department calling for the withdrawal of these regulations. Together, all of these associations represent nearly the entire higher education community. I would ask the Chairwoman 

that both of these letters be submitted for the Record. 

State Authorization 

I will first focus on the regulation dealing with state authorization, which for the 

first time establishes a specific federal set of criteria that all states must conform 

to in order for institutions within their state to be eligible for Title IV financial aid. 

The main rationale used by the Department in adopting this regulation stems 

from the expiration of the California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) several years ago. Ironically, the California legislature 

and the Governor did not extend the legislation to continue this Bureau in operation 

because it was not doing a good enough job of weeding out inadequate institutions, 

and all agreed that tougher legislation was needed. In the interim period before new 

legislation was passed, all state licensed institutions were asked to maintain their 

same commitments to consumers as before and there were no problems reported by 

any accredited institution that called into question their financial aid from the federal government. USDE recognized accrediting agencies, such as WASC, maintained 
22 

oversight of these institutions, and followed up on any consumer complaints as already required by federal law. Subsequently, a new law was passed and a new Bureau overseeing private postsecondary education in California is now in place and 

working. 

So, while the process may not have been as smooth as one would have liked, there 

were no significant problems that occurred in California as a result of this situation. 

This fact was confirmed publicly by the Department in negotiated rulemaking; yet, 

the Department nonetheless felt the need to develop a policy to address a possible 

set of circumstances similar to those experienced in California to deal with problems 

the might occur. Since the Department was unable to identify any fraud or abuse 

that resulted from this interim period in California, there is simply not sufficient 

justification for the considerable extension of federal authority the new regulation 

imposes. 

Beyond the lack of clear need, another major concern is that the regulation overreaches federal authority to instruct states how to establish their regulatory system 

for higher education institutions operating within their borders. States have utilized 

a number of statutory and regulatory approaches to license institutions to operate 

and award degrees, and this new regulation will only complicate and confuse these 

efforts. For example, the Department has never identified those states where it has 

found the state licensing process for private institutions to be a problem. Nor have 

they specifically identified those states that would need to change their regulatory 

or statutory arrangements to come into compliance with this regulation. 

WASC commissioned our legal counsel to undertake a review of state law using 

a draft of the regulation during the negotiated rulemaking process. Our lawyers 

found that as many as thirty-seven states would need to modify their licensing statutes in one way or another to comply with these regulations. While this memo was 

shared with the Department, the issues raised in it have never been addressed. 

Today, many states are confused regarding what, if anything, they need to do to 

come into conformity with the new regulations. At a time when so many states are 

suffering significant budget reductions, many states will likely be forced to expand 

their bureaucracies, increase their costs, and impose ever more administrative requirements upon their private institutions. And to think, this unnecessary and inappropriate extension of federal authority is all a result of an attempt to address a 

problem that even the Department admits failed to materialize when it was expected to occur in California. 

Which leads us to our current dilemma. States and institutions alike are confused 

regarding what they need to do to come into compliance with the new regulation. 

Institutions in California like the University of the Pacific founded in 1851, and 

Mills College founded in1852 and Stanford founded in 1891 must suddenly prove 

they are licensed to exist and potentially face a new level of oversight and review 

that they have not been subjected to before—despite the fact that there have been 

no identified problems. In addition, some believe this new regulation will require 

states to go beyond their existing processes and establish new complaint adjudication systems for all private institutions. This would be a significant expansion of 

state authority that could result in unprecedented interference in the internal operations of private institutions. Given that most complaints we receive are grade disputes or personnel matters, would these issues now become the subject of duplicative state reviews where the state is expected to second guess the actions of private 

institutions? 

A significant number of religious and faith-based institutions have also expressed 

concerns about the broad reach of this new regulation which limits the definition 

of a religious institution to only those that award religious degrees or certificates 

including, but not limited to, ‘‘a certificate of Talmudic studies, an associate of Biblical studies, a bachelor of religious studies, a master of divinity or a doctor of divinity.’’ This is an unprecedented narrowing of the definition of a religious institution. 

Again, in many states, religious institutions are defined much more broadly and we 

and other accrediting agencies accredit religious institutions that award a range of 

degrees well beyond those so narrowly defined in the regulation. These institutions 

are appropriately concerned that such a narrow definition will subject them to intrusive state monitoring of their activities and violation of their founding religious principles. 

Yet another area of great confusion and inappropriate federal intrusiveness is related to distance education programs. Under the regulations, institutions must: 1) 

meet any necessary state requirements to offer distance education legally in the 

state, and 2) upon request, document such legal authority. This puts the federal government in a position to determine if state law is met. It also puts institutions in 

an insurmountable quandary—if there is no state regulation must the institution 

nonetheless demonstrate it is not required to register with the state? Must states 
23 

now issue letters indicating that institutions don’t need to be registered? Will this 

lead states to enact new and likely contradictory, registration requirements for their 

states? This provision already has led to enormous confusion and uncertainty. 

Finally, there is no provision for enforcement. After states have gone to the trouble of working though these issues how will the Department determine whether the 

state has done what is required to conform to the confusing language of the regulation? There is no process by which the Department will assure that a state has come 

into compliance or that institutions have done so as well. Will an entire state’s federal financial aid now be at risk? Will an institution’s entire financial aid eligibility 

now be at risk if it fails to obtain the proper letters of authorization to offer distance 

education in each and every state? No one knows. 

In sum, this regulation fails to address a clearly stated problem; creates significant confusion in its implementation; and represents a major burden on states and 

institutions which far exceeds the nature of the problem being addressed. 

Credit Hour 

An even greater set of problems arises from the adoption of the regulation on the 

credit hour. This regulation establishes, for the first time, a federal definition of a 

credit hour for all courses at all institutions receiving federal financial aid. Institutional accrediting agencies, such as WASC, in turn, must require compliance with 

this federal definition in all comprehensive institutional reviews, and are permitted 

to use a sampling approach. Deficiencies are to be corrected, and systemic problems 

are to be promptly reported to the Secretary of Education. While this may appear 

straightforward, each one of the elements of this regulation has already led to significant confusion and concern. 

As with the state authorization regulation, the justification used by the Department to impose this regulation is very limited. Specifically, this regulation stems 

largely from a targeted review by the Department’s Inspector General. This review 

found that one regional accreditor, in the course of a site review, found an excessive 

award of credit for the amount of engagement required by some courses within a 

single institution. The accreditor required that the institution address this issue, 

and the institution corrected the credit award, and a follow up visit confirmed that 

the corrections had been made. In a nutshell, the existing system worked, and 

worked within a timely manner. Yet this example is cited as the basis for requiring 

every one of the more than 5,000 institutions of higher education to justify the credit award for each and every course offered. 

The primary concern regarding credit awards is not the traditional seat-time 

based classroom course—it is rather the accelerated course formats offered over intensive days or weekends, or online courses that may not have required interactions 

with faculty or other students (asynchronous). Existing federal regulations already 

establish that a change in modality will trigger a substantive change review and 

all accreditors closely monitor online programs, and are already required by the Department to review online programs and assure that all accrediting standards are 

applied to them. Similarly, all off-site and major new programs are reviewed prior 

to opening through the substantive change processes that review courses and curricula to assure that the programs are appropriately resourced and of sound academic quality. In our site reviews, we pay special attention to all of these types of 

programs. Thus, for those programs where credit awards are most likely to present 

an issue, there are existing procedures in place prior to programs being offered and 

as part of ongoing accrediting reviews that assure program integrity. There is no 

adequate rationale for requiring every institution to verify every course credit assignment as required by this regulation, especially given the close level of monitoring that accreditors already provide. 

The credit hour is a cornerstone of the American academic system, and the faculty 

at nearly every institution are responsible to set and oversee credit awards for all 

courses, certificates and degrees awarded in the name of the institution. This is a 

central role of the faculty, and one that has been well established and has proved 

to be highly effective in supporting the diversity of institutions within the American 

higher education system—which continues to be the best in the world. The application of the American credit hour system has been sufficiently flexible within and 

across institutions to adapt to the many different levels of courses across multiple 

disciplines, different delivery modes, and accommodate not only classroom courses 

but laboratory work, internships, online courses and programs, and other forms of 

academic endeavor. To apply a federal definition to all of these academic endeavors 

will intrude into the work of faculty across the country, and force their decisions 

to fit the federal definition. This makes no sense and will only lead to stifling new 

and innovative approaches to delivery as institutions worry that they may not be 

meeting an externally imposed definition of a credit hour. 
24 

Moreover, the definition of the credit hour in this regulation gives primary emphasis to seat time. This returns to an outdated input model of measuring quality 

when we are working with institutions to focus increasingly on learning outcomes. 

All accrediting agencies have challenged institutions to be more explicit about identifying learning outcomes at the program and institutional levels, and reviewing the 

competencies and capacities of students at the completion of their programs. This 

regulation fundamentally shifts the focus to a smaller unit of analysis. We would 

like to see a more forward looking approach to addressing institutional quality than 

this outdated seat-time compliance model for each and every course offered in the 

US. 

There will be an enormous cost—in real dollars and in a shift in focus—to implement this regulation given that the more than 5000 institutions eligible for financial 

aid offer millions of courses each year. A sense of scale is useful: Stanford University and the University of Southern California each offer close to 10,000 courses a 

year in several hundred degree programs; California State University, San 

Bernardino and San Francisco State University, medium sized institutions, offer 

over 8500 courses each annually; the University of California estimates they offer 

over 50,000 courses a year; the California Community Colleges over 180,000. Even 

a small comprehensive university like the University of San Francisco offers over 

5000 courses a year. The credit hour regulation requires institutions to be responsible to verify the ‘‘reliability and accuracy’’ of their credit awards, meaning that 

they will now need to divert extensive resources and faculty time to document 

course credit awards across the entire institution. While most institutions have systems in place for reviewing and approving new courses and programs, this regulation will lead institutions to review and document the credit awards for all existing 

courses of all types, even if offered for many years. There is no evidence that the 

issue of questionable credit awards applies to traditional course delivery formats, 

which comprise the majority of courses at traditional institutions. The breadth of 

this regulatory requirement, therefore, is unnecessary and will require an enormous 

amount of human and financial resources to implement. 

In addition, accrediting agencies are expected to evaluate the reliability and accuracy of institutional credit assignments, which means that a whole new dimension 

is added to the institutional accreditation review process. How will the ‘‘reliability 

and accuracy’’ of course assignments be determined without looking in detail at a 

significant sample of course syllabi and student assignments across a wide range 

of disciplines, levels and formats? While this surely can be done, is it the best focus 

to give to institutional reviews or quality and integrity? We think not. In undertaking these evaluations, the regulation permits a ‘‘sampling’’ approach. While this 

may sound simple, given the enormous number of courses offered each year by institutions, how large or broad must the sample be? No sample size is identified, but 

assume that a sample size of 10% of courses was undertaken for small to medium 

sized institutions, and even 5% for large institutions. Would this be considered 

enough? If one were to assume that it took a single evaluator up to 10-20 minutes 

per course to review a sample syllabus and the credit assignment for a medium 

sized institution offering 5,500 courses, as does the University of San Francisco, this 

would require up to 180 hours for just this one institution, or the equivalent of a 

single person working full-time for 3—4.5 weeks on this task alone. For larger institutions, it is very likely that the amount of time would be even greater. The result 

is an incredible diversion of time and resources for both institutions and accrediting 

agencies to define and implement sampling methods. 

As president of an accrediting agency I am also concerned that regardless of how 

we, along with our institutions, decide to implement this regulation, we will still be 

subject to being overturned by the staff of the Department or of the National Advisory Committee for Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) when our agencies 

come up for recognition review. We could foresee such determinations as our reviews 

not being ‘‘effective,’’ as required in the regulation, through such identified issues 

as the sample size being found not large enough, or the scope of review, even at 

institutions with no history of problems, found not broad enough. Or being told that 

the evidence of ‘‘reliability and accuracy’’ of credit awards, as determined by the institution, is not sufficiently scientific. In other words, it is possible that Departmental review of institutions and accrediting agencies will delve into actual institutional policies on credit awards, or course credit assignments, or the accrediting 

agency’s review methodology—ultimately federalizing the entire system of credit 

awards. 

Additional steps underway 

As an institutional accreditor serving the public as well as over 160 institutions 

with more than a million students, we take our responsibilities to assure institu-
25 

1Subsection (a)(1) of the Proposed Regulation. 

2Subsection (b)(1) of the Proposed Regulation. 

3Subsection (b)(2) of the Proposed Regulation. 

4Subsection (b)(3) of the Proposed Regulation. 

tional quality and integrity seriously. We believe that both of these regulations are 

moving higher education in the wrong direction. I would urge that instead our attention be directed toward 1) increasing completion rates of all students; 2) assuring 

that the outcomes of degrees and certificates are of high quality; and 3) that high 

quality innovation be supported. 

At WASC, for the past several years, we have been requiring that a review and 

evaluation of retention and graduation data be a central part of each comprehensive 

institutional review, and are working to go beyond this to benchmark, within each 

institution’s context, an appropriate graduation rate for key groups. Second, we are 

exploring the use of a common framework for the associate and bachelor’s degree 

that focuses institutions on essential outcomes for these degrees. Third, we are 

working with institutions to improve methods of assessing student learning, share 

best practices, and establish external benchmarks that will be useful for assuring 

high quality. In addition, we are exploring increasing the transparency of the accrediting process through expanded public information provided by the institution 

and by WASC at the end of the accreditation review cycle. 

These steps are forward looking and the two regulations I have addressed today 

move us away from these goals. They impose unnecessary and extensive burdens 

on institutions, states and accreditors at a time when every dollar counts, and when 

the focus needs to be on focusing energies where there are real problems, and relying on using more effectively the existing systems already in place. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, these two regulations need to be withdrawn. At a minimum, since 

they require institutions, accreditors and states to be in compliance by July 1, 2011, 

there should be a one year extension to allow further discussion and resolution of 

these issues. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide these comments. 

Mr. WOLFF. And I would like to submit both of those letters into 

the record. 

[The information follows; a Feb. 16, 2011, letter is on page 77:] 

TO: RALPH WOLFF, BARBARA BENO

FROM: LAURENCE W. KESSENICK, DANIEL I. ZACHARIA

DATE: JUNE 30, 2010 

RE: State by State Analysis (34 C.F.R. § 600.9) 

This memorandum is our response to your request that we evaluate the impact 

on the State licensure schemes of the 50 States of a regulation, proposed by the U.S. 

Department of Education (‘‘DOE ’’), identified as 34 C.F.R. §600.9 in the Federal 

Register, dated June 18, 2010 (the ‘‘Proposed Regulation ’’). 

Existing federal law requires that, as a condition for eligibility for Title IV funding, private postsecondary institutions are legally authorized to operate within the 

States in which they are issuing degrees. Under the Proposed Regulation, an institution will not be considered legally authorized unless all of the following four conditions exist: (1) the State in which the institution operates has a method of formally 

approving of the institution, whether by charter, license or other document issued 

by an appropriate State agency or entity; 1 (2) the authorization is specifically for 

programs beyond secondary education; 2 (3) the authorization is subject to adverse 

action by the State; 3 and (4) the State reviews and acts on complaints concerning 

an institution and enforces applicable State laws.4 In order to study the potential 

impact of the Proposed Regulation on the educational statutory schemes of the 50 

States, we attempted to measure each state’s licensure scheme against the above 

four conditions. To that end, we asked four questions: 

(1) Does the State have a system of laws that grant private postsecondary degree 

granting institutions approval or authority to operate in the State? 

(2) Is the approval or authority to operate granted by the State specifically for 

programs beyond secondary education? 

(3) Is the approval or authority to operate granted by the State subject to adverse 

action by the State? 
26 

(4) Does the State have a process to review and appropriately act on complaints 

concerning an institution and enforce applicable State laws? 

We evaluated each State’s laws under the premise that the laws would not comply 

with the Proposed Regulation if the answer to any of the four above questions is 

‘‘no’’ with respect to a particular State’s laws. If this is the case, the noncompliant 

State will either have to amend its existing laws, or adopt new laws, to bring itself 

into compliance with the Proposed Regulation. Otherwise, private postsecondary 

schools operating within those States face the prospect of losing their Title IV eligibility. In this regard, there is a large degree of ambiguity in the meaning and application of the terms of the Proposed Regulation. It is uncertain, for example, whether 

a State can rely on existing federal laws that relate to the accreditation of institutions receiving Title IV funds in fulfilling its ‘‘adverse action’’ responsibilities under 

condition (3), above. It is also uncertain whether State enforcement of laws unrelated to institutional licensure, such as common law fraud or false advertising laws, 

for example, could be used to meet condition (4), above. Accordingly, in many instances our evaluation could not determine with any certainty whether the laws will 

comply with the Proposed Regulation or not. In addition, please keep in mind that 

memo’s conclusions with respect to each State were limited by time constraints, and 

that it is possible that State statutory or regulatory schemes beyond those identified 

below may impact the determination of the State’s compliance with the Proposed 

Regulation. We do not practice law in 49 of the 50 states we evaluated. Therefore 

we cannot presume to be experts with respect to these States. It is quite possible 

that we missed relevant laws simply because we are not familiar with each States’ 

overall statutory schemes. 

The results of the State-by-State analysis are as follows: 

• the laws of twelve (12) States will, in our opinion, comply with the Proposed 

Regulation; 

• the laws of six (6) States will, in our opinion, clearly not comply with the Proposed Regulation; 

• the laws of thirty two (32) States will probably not comply with the Proposed 

Regulation (i.e., it is doubtful that the laws of these States will comply with one 

or more of the four criteria). 

Based on these results, it is likely that a total of thirty eight (38) States will have 

to amend, repeal or otherwise modify their laws to comply with the Proposed Regulation. We provide the complete analysis, in alphabetical order, below: 

1. Alabama. It is doubtful that Alabama law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. Although Alabama has a state licensure scheme, Alabama exempts schools 

from licensure on the basis of age or accreditation. Moreover, the law provides that 

such exemption ‘‘shall not be construed to constitute approval or endorsement by the 

State of Alabama for any purpose.’’ (See Code of Ala. § 16-46-3. Contrast this with 

States that have exemptions from licensure schemes, but grant express approval on 

the grounds of such exemption, such as California’s Education Code § 94890.) Current law probably does not meet criteria 1, 2, and 4. 

2. Alaska. Alaska law should comply with the Proposed Regulation. It has a state 

licensure scheme, which includes adverse actions, review of complaints and enforcement. The exemption for accredited schools is discretionary. (See Alaska Stat. § 14- 

48-010.) Current law probably meets all four criteria. 

3. Arizona. Arizona law should comply with the Proposed Regulation. The current 

law requires that an institution must be licensed by the State. The State Board for 

Private Postsecondary Education has adequate review and enforcement capability. 

(See A.R.S. § 32-3001 et seq.) Current law probably meets all four criteria. 

4. Arkansas. Arkansas law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. Through 

the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board, the State has an adequate system for authorization, review and enforcement. (See A.C.A. § 6-61-301 et seq.) Current law meets all four criteria. 

5. California. It is doubtful that California law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. Although California recently enacted the California Private Postsecondary 

Education Act of 2009 (Cal. Ed. Code § 94800 et seq.), and implementing regulations 

(5 C.C.R. § 70000 et seq.), it is unclear whether California would be deemed to have 

sufficient authority over WASC accredited institutions, which are exempt. Current 

probably meets criteria 1, 2, and 3, but probably not criterion 4. 

6. Colorado. It is doubtful that Colorado law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. Colorado has a state licensing scheme that requires state authorization and 

contains review standards that possibly comply with the Proposed Regulation; however, the scheme includes an exemption for accredited institutions. (See C.R.S. § 23- 

2-103.3.) Current law probably does not meet criteria 1, 2, and 4 with respect to 

exempt institutions. 
27 

7. Connecticut. It is doubtful that Connecticut law will comply with the Proposed 

Regulation. The State licenses and accredits private postsecondary institutions, and 

monitors them for compliance with its licensing laws, although there is a State exemption for programs accredited before 1965. (See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10a-34.) With 

respect to exempt institutions, current law probably does not meet criteria 1, 2, and 

4. 

8. Delaware. It is doubtful that Delaware law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. Although there is a state licensure scheme, the State exempts accredited 

institutions and relies on accrediting agencies to conduct state authorization review. 

(See C.D.R. § 14-200.) Current law probably does not meet criteria 1, 2, and 4. 

9. Florida. Florida law will probably comply with the Proposed Regulation. There 

is a State licensure scheme, but the State exempts institutions that are granted licenses based on accreditation. However, exempt accredited institutions must still 

comply with the standards of fair consumer practices established by the State, and 

the State has the discretion to limit or revoke the exemption (See Fla. Stat. § 

1005.32.). Current law probably meets all four criteria. 

10. Georgia. It is doubtful that Georgia law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. Although there is a state licensure scheme, and Georgia’s State authorization 

review standards arguably comply with the requirements of the Proposed Regulation, the State law currently exempts institutions on the basis of accreditation, age 

and non profit status. (See O.C.G.A. § 20-3-250.3.) With respect to exempt institutions, current law will probably not meet criteria 1, 2 and 4. 

11. Hawaii. Hawaii law will not comply with the Proposed Regulation. Hawaii 

does not have a traditional licensure scheme. Institutions accredited by an agency 

recognized by the U.S. DOE are exempt from regulation by the State (H.R.S. § 

446E-1.6); unaccredited institutions must simply comply with a short list of disclosures mandated by the State that fall short of complying with the State authorization review component of the Proposed Regulation (H.R.S. § 446E-2). Current law 

would not meet any of the four criteria. 

12. Idaho. It is doubtful that Idaho law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. 

The State laws provide for the licensing and review of institutions, and enforcement 

of State laws, but exempt nonprofit institutions. (See Idaho Code § 33-2402, and implementing regulations, IDAPA 08.01.11.001.) With respect to exempt institutions, 

current law will probably not meet criteria 1, 2, and 4. 

13. Illinois. It is doubtful that Illinois law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. Under the Private College Act (110 ILCS § 1005/0.01) and the Academic Degree Act (110 ILCS § 1010/0.01), Illinois licenses and reviews institutions. However, 

the Private Business and Vocational Schools Act exempts certain postsecondary vocational schools that would be subject to the Proposed Regulation (See 105 ILCS 

425/1.1). With respect to exempt institutions, current law will probably not meet criteria 2, 3, and 4. 

14. Indiana. Indiana law will not comply with the Proposed Regulation. Indiana 

has no state licensure scheme in place for private postsecondary institutions with 

regional accreditation, nor any laws that address the state’s responsibility to conduct state authorization review. Indiana would have to enact comprehensive legislation to comply with the Proposed Regulation. Current law does not comply with any 

of the four criteria. 

15. Iowa. It is doubtful that Iowa law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. 

Although Iowa has a registration system for private postsecondary institutions, 

there is an exemption for accredited institutions, and Iowa does not have standards 

for state authorization review. (See Iowa Code §§ 261B.3A, 261B.11.) With respect 

to exempt institutions, current law probably will not meet criteria 1, 2, and 4. 

16. Kansas. It is doubtful that Kansas law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. The State requires State approval for all private postsecondary institutions, 

without exception, and has the ability to suspend that approval. However, regulations for State review do not apply to accredited institutions. (See K.S.A. § 74- 

32,162, and see K.A.R. § 88-28-4.) Current law probably meets criteria 1, 2, and 3, 

but, with respect to accredited institutions, may not meet criterion 4. 

17. Kentucky. It is doubtful that Kentucky law will comply with the Proposed 

Regulation. Although Kentucky has a state licensure scheme, and system for State 

review, the State may exempt of schools from licensure on the basis of accreditation. 

(13 KAR § 1:020.) Current law may not meet criteria 1, 2 and 4 with respect to exempt institutions. 

18. Louisiana. It is doubtful that Louisiana law will comply with the Proposed 

Regulation. The current law requires that an institution must be licensed by the 

State; but the State expressly allows accrediting agencies to conduct statute authorization review activities. (See LAC 28:IX.Chapters 1-5, 32 LR 386.) Current law 

probably meets criteria 1, 2 and 3, but not criteria 4. 
28 

19. Maine. Maine law will probably comply with the Proposed Regulation. Maine 

has a state licensure scheme, and although it exempts certain schools from licensure, the State reserves the right to review institutions for exemption status on a 

case by case basis. (See 20-A M.R.S. § 10708; and see C.M.R. § 05-071-149.) Current 

probably meets all four criteria. 

20. Maryland. Maryland law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. The State 

has an approval process for private postsecondary institutions, which is subject to 

State review and action. (See COMAR 13B.02.03, and 13B.02.02.08.) Current law 

meets all four criteria. 

21. Massachusetts. Massachusetts law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. 

The State Board of Higher Education fulfills all of the duties required. (See 610 

CMR 2.01 et seq.) Current law meets all four criteria. 

22. Michigan. Michigan law will not comply with the Proposed Regulation. We 

could not locate a State system of licensing and review for private postsecondary 

educational institutions. Current law does not appear to meet any of the four criteria. 

23. Minnesota. Minnesota law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. (See 

Minn. Stat. § 136A.61 et seq.) Current law meets all four criteria. 

24. Mississippi. It is doubtful that Mississippi law will comply with the Proposed 

Regulation. Although there is a state licensure scheme, the State exempts institutions that are accredited by S.A.C.S. from its licensing process and standards. (See 

Miss. Code Ann. § 37-101-241.) With respect to exempt institutions, current law 

probably will not meet criteria 1, 2, and 4. 

25. Missouri. Missouri law will not comply with the Proposed Regulation. We 

could not locate a State system of licensing and review for private postsecondary 

educational institutions. Current law does not appear to meet any of the four criteria. 

26. Montana. Montana law will not comply with the Proposed Regulation. The 

State’s private postsecondary licensure scheme was repealed and Montana does not 

regulate private postsecondary degree granting institutions. (See former Mont. Code 

Anno., § 20-30-101.) Current law does not meet any of the four criteria. 

27. Nebraska. Nebraska law will not comply with the Proposed Regulation. The 

State only requires approval for private postsecondary institutions created after 

September 1, 1999. (See R.R.S. Neb. § 85-1105.) Current law does not meet any of 

the four criteria. 

28. Nevada. It is doubtful that Nevada law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. The State requires licensure for all private postsecondary degree granting institutions operating in Nevada; however, the State accepts accreditation in lieu of 

compliance with its minimum standards, including those pertaining to consumer 

protection. (See Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 394.415, and § 394.447.) Current law meets 

criteria 1, 2, and 3, but will probably not meet criterion 4 with respect to accredited 

institutions. 

29. New Hampshire. It is doubtful that New Hampshire law will comply with the 

Proposed Regulation. The State has a system of approving institutions, but may accept accreditation by a U.S. DOE recognized institutional accrediting agency in lieu 

of State review. (See N.H. Admin. Rules, Pos 1001.05) With respect to accredited 

institutions, current law probably meets criteria 1, 2 and 3, but may not meet criterion 4. 

30. New Jersey. New Jersey law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. The 

State has a comprehensive system of licensure, review and enforcement. (See N.J. 

Stat. § 18A:3B-1.) Current law meets all four criteria. 

31. New Mexico. It is doubtful that New Mexico law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. New Mexico exempts from state licensure and state authorization 

review all private postsecondary institutions accredited by a regional accrediting 

agency recognized by the U.S. DOE. (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 21-23-4.) With respect to 

exempt institutions, current probably does not meet criteria 1, 2, and 4. 

32. New York. New York law should comply with the Proposed Regulation. (See 

N.Y. C.L.S. Educ. § 224.) Current law meets all four criteria. 

33. North Carolina. It is doubtful that North Carolina law will comply with the 

Proposed Regulation. Although North Carolina licenses and reviews private postsecondary institutions, it exempts from licensure and state authorization review all institutions that have continuously conducted post-secondary degree activity in the 

State since July 1, 1972. (See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 116-15.) With respect to exempt institutions, current law may not meet criteria 1, 2 and 4. 

34. North Dakota. It is doubtful that North Dakota law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. Although North Dakota licenses and reviews private postsecondary institutions for compliance with its consumer protection laws, it exempts all 

private four-year institutions chartered or incorporated and operating in the state 
29 

prior to July 1, 1977, so long as the institutions retain accreditation by national or 

regional accrediting agencies recognized by the U. S. DOE. (See N.D. Cent. Code, 

§ 15-20.4-02.) With respect to exempt institutions, current law will probably not 

meet criteria 1, 2 and 4. 

35. Ohio. Ohio law will probably comply with the Proposed Regulation. Private 

postsecondary institutions are subject to a comprehensive State licensure, review 

and enforcement scheme. (See ORC Ann. 1713.01 et seq.). Current law probably 

meets all four criteria. 

36. Oklahoma. It is doubtful that Oklahoma law will comply with the Proposed 

Regulation. Oklahoma exempts from state authorization all degrees offered by a private postsecondary institution accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the 

U.S. DOE. (70 Okl. St. § 4104.) With respect to exempt institutions, current law 

may not meet criteria 1, 2 and 4. 

37. Oregon. It is doubtful that Oregon law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. Oregon exempts from state authorization degrees offered by nonprofit postsecondary institutions. (ORS § 348.604.) With respect to exempt nonprofit institutions, 

current law probably will not meet criteria 1, 2 and 4. 

38. Pennsylvania. It is doubtful that Pennsylvania law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. The State certifies and reviews private postsecondary institutions, 

but exempts institutions incorporated on or before September 1, 1937. (24 Pa.C.S. 

§ 6503.) With respect to exempt institutions, current law may not meet criteria 1, 

2 and 4. 

39. Rhode Island. It is doubtful that Rhode Island law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. Rhode Island requires State approval and review, but exempts 

certain institutions. (See R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-40-1§ et seq., and 16-59-1 et seq.) With 

respect to exempt institutions, current law may not meet criteria 1, 2 and 4. 

40. South Carolina. It is doubtful that South Carolina law will comply with the 

Proposed Regulation. South Carolina licenses private postsecondary institutions, but 

exempts those domiciled within the State and accredited by S.A.C.S. (See S.C. Code 

Ann. § 59-58-30.) With respect to exempt institutions, current probably will not 

meet criteria 1, 2 and 4. 

41. South Dakota. It is doubtful that South Dakota law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. South Dakota has a State approval and accreditation process for 

most nonpublic postsecondary institutions; however, South Dakota allows accreditation by an ‘‘external third-party accreditation agency’’ as an alternative means of approval for nonpublic schools. (See ARSD 24:43:04:01; and ARSD 24:43:04:03.) Current law probably will not meet criteria 1, 2, and 4. 

42. Tennessee. It is doubtful that Tennessee law will comply with the Proposed 

Regulation. Tennessee licenses and reviews institutions, but exempts institutions 

that are located and domiciled in Tennessee for at least ten (10) consecutive years 

and accredited by S.A.C.S. (See Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-7-2001, and § 49-7-2004.) 

With respect to exempt institutions, current law may not meet criteria 1, 2 and 4. 

43. Texas. It is doubtful that Texas law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. 

Texas requires State licensure or certification, and compliance with comprehensive 

consumer protection laws; however, these laws do not apply to institutions accredited by a regional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. DOE. (See Tex. Educ. 

Code § 61.303; and 19 TAC § 7.4.) With respect to exempt institutions, current law 

probably will not meet criteria 1, 2 and 4. 

44. Utah. It is doubtful that Utah law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. 

Utah has a registration system for private postsecondary institutions, and requires 

compliance with comprehensive consumer protection laws; however, these laws do 

not apply to institutions accredited by a regional accrediting agency recognized by 

the U.S. DOE. (See Utah Code Ann. § 13-34-105.) With respect to exempt institutions, current law probably will not meet criteria 1, 2 and 4. 

45. Vermont. It is doubtful that Vermont law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. Although the State requires state board approval, and reviews institutions 

in accordance with federal standards established in 20 U.S.C. § 1099a-3. (16 V.S.A. 

§ 2882.), it exempts religious institutions, and institutions accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the State Board. (See 16 V.S.A. § 176.) With respect to 

exempt institutions, current law will probably not meet criteria 1, 2 and 4. 

46. Virginia. It is doubtful that Virginia law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. Virginia requires State licensure or certification, and compliance with comprehensive consumer protection laws; however, these laws do not apply to religious 

institutions, or nonprofit institutions accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. 

DOE, or accredited institutions in operation for at least 10 years at the time the 

state legislation was passed. (See Va. Code Ann. § 23-276.2; and § 23-276.4.) With 

respect to exempt institutions, current law will probably not meet criteria 1, 2 and 

4. 
30 

47. Washington. It is doubtful that Washington law will comply with the Proposed 

Regulation. Washington requires State licensure or certification, and compliance 

with comprehensive consumer protection laws; however, Washington’s regulatory 

scheme does not apply to private postsecondary institutions that are religious oriented, or accredited by an agency recognized by the state board and have been operating within the state for 15 years or more. (See Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 

28B.85.010 et seq.; and WAC § 250-61-060.) With respect to exempt institutions, 

current law may not meet criteria 1, 2 and 4. 

48. West Virginia. It is doubtful that West Virginia law will comply with the Proposed Regulation. The State requires licensure and compliance with comprehensive 

consumer protection laws (See W. Va. Code § 18B-4-7); however, it exempts institutions approved to operate in West Virginia prior to July 1, 2006, and waives significant levels of state authorization review for institutions accredited by regional accrediting associations. (See W. Va. CSR § 133-20-9; and W. Va. CSR § 133-20-4.) 

With respect to exempt institutions, current law may not meet criteria 1, 2 and 4. 

49. Wisconsin. It is doubtful that Wisconsin law will comply with the Proposed 

Regulation. The State approves and reviews private postsecondary institutions, but 

exempts institutions accredited by accrediting agencies recognized by the State 

board. (See Wis. Stat. § 38.50.) With respect to exempt institutions, current law will 

probably not meet criteria 1, 2 and 4. 

50. Wyoming. Wyoming law will probably comply with the Proposed Regulation. 

Wyoming requires State licensure for all private postsecondary degree-granting institutions (See Wyo. Stat. § 21-2-401 et seq.; and W.C.W.R. § 005-000-030). Current 

law probably meets all four criteria. 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 

Chairwoman FOXX. Without objection. 

Thank you all very much again, for your comments. I would like 

to direct this question to Mr. Ebersole, Dr. Dowden, and Mr. Wolff. 

I understand the Department is working on some additional guidance for these regulations and it is been our understanding that 

the purpose of regulations was to provide additional clarity to the 

statute, not to further complicate it. But if you didn’t cover in your 

testimony, could you provide us with some of the—some examples 

of unanswered questions you still have about these regulations? 

Mr. Ebersole. 

Mr. EBERSOLE. Thank you. We have a number of questions about 

these regulations. We have not received guidance, even though we 
36 

have asked for and been granted one-on-one meetings with various 

officials within the Department of Education. We have been told 

that there is some form of Dear Colleague Letter which will be 

forthcoming. We have been waiting for a couple of months now for 

this. 

Meanwhile the clock continues to tick towards the effective date. 

And we have been told by a number of states that they do not 

know how they are going to enforce this rule and we are going to 

be put in a position of jeopardy where we are either going to have 

withdrawn from those states or put our Title IV eligibility at risk. 

We would prefer not to do either but we are quite confused at 

this point. We do know we have put money in our budget for compliance and we estimate that at our institution by the time we hire 

the additional staff that will be necessary to coordinate this and we 

pay the fees which each of these states requires we are going to 

have an annual recurring cost of somewhere between $150,000 and 

$200,000 which when multiplied by the number of institutions that 

offer online programs today, we are talking about an additional 

cost which will eventually be passed to students of $500 million. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Dr. Dowden. 

Mr. DOWDEN. I would answer that by saying that, in regards to 

the state authorization we, in preparation for this testimony called 

our state, and they at this point have no idea of how they are going 

to implement it, what it actually means for the state and what will 

be the requirements. 

For the credit hour, I think the definition is obviously clear but 

it is confusing and how it relates to a variety of educational experiences that we offer at the institution including practicums and student teaching experiences and many other experiences that don’t 

include the formula of the seat time and that might be difficult to 

figure out an equivalency as proposed in the regulations. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. 

Mr. Wolff. 

Mr. WOLFF. Three quick comments. First, the nature of Dear Colleague Letters issued by the Department are such they offer interpretations of regulatory language that themselves need further interpretation by the staff, that vary from region, from accreditor to 

accreditor, when accreditors come up for review. 

And institutions will not know until they have gone through 

their program review whether or not they have gone through their 

program reviews whether or not they have conformed. So it is a 

never ending, sub-regulatory interpretation approach. 

There are so many areas of confusion, let me identify one with 

each of the regulations. With respect to the credit hour, the accrediting agencies are expected or allowed to sample courses to ensure 

the reliability and accuracy and conduct effective reviews. 

The California community colleges offer over 180,000 courses, the 

University of California, 50,000, Stanford 10,000. Even a small 

middle-sized institution like the University of San Francisco offers 

5,000 courses. What would be an effective sample size, how much 

time will it take? We don’t know and we are afraid that the—any 

sample size will require an enormous burden on the institutions. 

With respect to state authorization, for 40 years we had an arrangement with the State of California that student complaints 
37 

would be referred to WASC, we would review them, and if we 

found they were serious they would be referred to the Attorney 

General. We have no idea if that would be continued or if a completely new and duplicative complaint process would need to be established. That is just two of many areas. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you all very much. 

Mr. Hinojosa, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. First I would like to welcome our distinguished guests and say that I am pleased to see that Ms. Kathleen Tighe, our Inspector General, is here today. 

My first question is directed to Inspector General Tighe. In your 

testimony you indicate that the explosion of online education in recent years has made it even more difficult to assign credit hours 

and assess student achievement. What are national and regional 

accreditation agencies doing to ensure that online education programs provide quality—that they provide content and academic 

rigor at the post-secondary level? 

Ms. TIGHE. Well, I think that was one of the things we went in 

to look at when we did our review over the last couple of years. We 

went into three regional accrediting agencies who collectively were 

responsible for accrediting over 2,000 schools including schools offering online education programs. 

I think the difficult problem in this area, that we have found, is 

when you don’t have a definition of a credit hour or guidance as 

to program length or guidance as to assignment of a credit hour, 

when you have nontraditional format it is very hard to sort of 

make judgments as to the kinds of standards I think accrediting 

agencies should be making judgments on. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. If you could expand Ms. Tighe, in your testimony 

you indicate that the definition of a credit hour protects students 

and taxpayers from inflated credit hours, the improper designation 

of full-time student status, the over-awarding of federal student aid 

funds and excessive borrowing by students, especially with distance, accelerated and other programs not delivered through traditional classroom format. So what type of impact do you believe this 

regulation will have on regional and national accrediting agencies? 

Ms. TIGHE. Well, I think that they will have to do what we believe they should be doing, which is really looking at schools in a 

way that—I think a definition of a credit hour will allow them to 

have sort of a common understanding and standard to judge these 

schools by. It is a challenge. There is no doubt about it—in the online environment—for coming up with something that makes sense. 

It appears to us that the Department has come up with a definition that provides enough flexibility to bring in student outcomes 

and I know those were some of the issues raised to us by HLC and 

Middle States also—that they relied on student outcomes and 

didn’t want to be tied to a definition of a credit hour. I don’t think 

those two concepts are inherently incompatible. 

So I think it is really a matter for us, in the Office of Inspector 

General, making sure Title IV money is spent wisely and that students do not over-borrow and that taxpayers aren’t on the hook 

where they should not be. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 
38 

Mr. Wolff, absent a definition of a credit hour, what do your accreditation teams evaluate on campus to assess institutional assignment of credit hour? 

Mr. WOLFF. Our teams—first of all, at the Western Association 

we have had a broad definition of a credit hour for many years. But 

I will say and that one other regional association does, the three 

that the Inspector General looked at did not have formal definition. 

But every—when a team goes and visits a campus, the first thing 

it does is it looks at a catalog, it looks at the range of courses that 

are offered, the kinds of courses that are offered, and what leads 

up to a degree. We are very concerned about how—the capacities 

of a graduate, at the time the student completes their program. 

We put primary attention on online programs, accelerated learning programs, where we think there are potential concerns. And so 

teams will go in. We look at syllabi, we look at what is in the kinds 

of work that is expected of students. We will often look at samples 

of student work. This is very labor intensive. 

And we have done so and required institutions to improve both— 

less their credit hour assignment, than the rigor of their work and 

the outcomes that are expected of the students. 

I would submit that the accrediting process is effective as it 

showed in the case of the Higher Learning Commission. In identifying issues we are primarily interested in the quality and the 

rigor of the work and think we do an effective job. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Dr. Dowden, how does it impact religious colleges 

like yours? 

Mr. DOWDEN. Well, if I could comment on the accrediting situation as well. I am a consultant evaluator for the Higher Learning 

Commission—— 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mr. Dowden, I am afraid we are out of time, 

so I am going to ask you to submit that for the record. 

Mr. DOWDEN. Okay. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. 

I now would like to recognize Mr. Thompson, from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you Madam Chairwoman for hosting this 

hearing. Thanks to all of the members of the panel for bringing 

your expertise on this very important issue. The—of higher education. Madam Chair I want to ask for unanimous consent to enter 

into the record a letter sent from the Citizens for Responsibility 

and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, to the Department of Education, Secretary Arne Duncan, dated March 1, 2011. 

[The information follows:] 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 

Chairwoman FOXX. Without objection. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Inspector General, thanks for being with us. My first question is 

really to just touch briefly on this, have you seen the letter from 

CREW to the Secretary, requesting that he examine the role of 

hedge fund managers and outside interest groups that played in 

the Department of Education’s regulations governing the for-profit 

education better known as gainful employment? 

Ms. TIGHE. I have seen the letter, yes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay. Great. And do you understand that CREW 

had obtained Freedom of Information Act request for emails of 

high-level Department of Education officials and their correspond-
62 

ence from outside groups with regards to the proposed gainful employment regulations? 

Ms. TIGHE. That is my understanding. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Great. And are you aware that CREW has alleged, within the letter, that both Deputy Undersecretary James 

Kvaal and Budget Development Staff Director, David Bergeron had 

knowingly planned a leak of the proposed regulations 2 days in advance of the regulations anticipated public roll out? 

Ms. TIGHE. That is what the letter says, yes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I am sure you know—can understand the gravity 

of the situation. Gainful employment regulations have had an effect 

on proprietary schools. Any collusion or insider information would 

have a bearing on short sellers hedging their bets against proprietary schools. And I believe this is what the SEC refers to as ‘‘insider training.’’ I am certainly no expert in that area. 

Were you—my question for you is, will you seek the assistance 

of the SEC in conducting the review that the Secretary has asked 

you to undertake of shortseller contracts and the influence with department officials? 

Ms. TIGHE. My understanding is a separate letter was also sent 

to the SEC with similar information and what I can tell you is that 

prior to receiving that particular letter we had also received an earlier letter from CREW and also from Senator Coburn, raising the 

same issues to us. It was pre—before FOIA request—response. And 

we had initiated an audit related to those issues and we are currently doing our work on that audit. 

Based on the further information CREW provided in that letter, 

that you spoke of, we gave that to our people looking at it and so 

they will take that all into account. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So will you at some point be working with the 

SEC given the implications of just a—just to be able to thoroughly 

investigate it from all areas. 

Ms. TIGHE. Faced with them, it would seem to make sense to do 

so, yes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Great, thank you. We—changing gears a bit. 

The—Pennsylvania’s budget rolled out this week and cuts to higher 

education were as expected. I mean, this is tough times, both in the 

nation and across the states and support for higher education was 

reduced. And so I have a concern as we know that revenues, certain parts of revenues are growing smaller, that the cost regulations continues to grow larger. 

And so my question for the panel is we have been spending much 

of the month talking about the impact of federal regulations on students and schools and can you briefly discuss the amount of time 

and specifically money that you spend on complying with federal 

laws and statutes and how much is this going to cost the institution which in the end goes towards making higher education more 

expensive and less accessible. 

Start with Mr. Ebersole, if we can. 

Mr. EBERSOLE. I believe that this is going to have a great impact 

on the cost of education. As I indicated in my earlier comments, I 

believe that we are going to see something in the neighborhood of 

$500,000 just on the education side let alone what it is going to require for the states in order to be compliant. 
63 

It is also going to bring into question programs such as that 

which the President lauded recently at Carnegie Melon where they 

were talking about accelerated learning. That would not be possible 

for any student studying under Title IV, given this definition. 

I am personally somewhat concerned that we in the higher education community, 4 years ago, spent a great deal of time and effort 

looking at learning outcomes. And we have been busy building 

learning outcomes which are being very much examined by 

accreditors rather than looking at inputs. 

The Inspector General talks about wanting to protect the taxpayers, I think what the taxpayers wants is, is learning occurring, 

not how many hours you have spent in a seat. Did you learn something? 

And we are actively at work right now assessing learning outcomes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Dr. Dowden and Mr. Wolff, I think I am 

going to have to ask you to submit your answers for the record 

also. And I would now like to recognize Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much Madam Chair. Mr. Ebersole, 

I want to engage you on the point you just made. I administered 

a college in New York State for 29 years before I came here. I 

wanted to get into a profession where politics was less of a factor. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. EBERSOLE. I see you have succeeded sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. I have, yes. When I was in New York we had to register every academic program we offered. With the State of New 

York it was something we simply had to do. And it wasn’t just ministerial. It was a qualitative assessment by the New York State 

Education Department. We somehow managed to survive. Syracuse 

has somehow managed to survive. Lemoyne has somehow managed 

to survive. And we also had to follow the Carnegie definition of a 

credit hour or its equivalent. 

And I want to pick up on what you just said. You said that the 

kind of program that President Obama lauded at Carnegie Melon 

would not be possible under this new regulation. And I really want 

to challenge you on that because if that logic is correct then we 

would not be offering summer courses, we would not be offering interim courses, because that is accelerated learning. 

If a student can earn three credits over a 4-or 5-or 6-week summer term, by virtue of having the same number of clock hours or 

seat hours of instruction, that in fact is accelerated learning but it 

is the credit hour or its equivalent. Am I not right? 

Mr. EBERSOLE. No, sir, I don’t think so. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, then educate me. 

Mr. EBERSOLE. What we are talking about is we are talking 

about gaining greater mastery over a subject area in the same or 

a less amount of time. 

Mr. BISHOP. And that is precisely what a summer course is. 

Mr. EBERSOLE. But a summer program, to carry a certain number of units, still has to meet for a certain number of hours. Online 

and with the computer I can match my instruction to your learning 

style. 
64 

Mr. BISHOP. So let’s be clear about one thing, because I think I 

agree with you. This issue is exclusively about non-traditional 

modes of instruction, correct? 

Mr. EBERSOLE. Well, that is my concern sir. My institution could 

not—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay, and Dr. Dowden, do you all agree? 

I know you haven’t had a chance to—you could—— 

Mr. DOWDEN. I would not agree with that. I think we—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Right. Then help me. If it isn’t about just non-traditional forms of instruction, would the curriculum committee at your 

school approve a full semester course that met for fewer than 45, 

50-minute hours? 

Mr. DOWDEN. They could, just depending on what the out-ofclassroom-work requirement was. We would have to—under these 

regulations the—— 

Mr. BISHOP. But does that not again—I mean my understanding 

of the regulation—I am not trying to be argumentative. I want to 

make sure I understand this. Is that it would be the Carnegie— 

what we all call the Carnegie definition—a three-credit course 

would be 45, 50-hours? 

Mr. DOWDEN. Right. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Or its equivalent. So if your curriculum committee 

were to say, you know what, this instructor is phenomenal he can 

get this information transmitted to the students in 6 weeks. Would 

your curriculum committee approve that? 6 weeks of maybe 18 

hours of instruction? 

Mr. DOWDEN. Let me say that at our institution faculty are very 

stingy with credit hour. It is the corn of the realm and they are 

very, very careful to award credit hour. In fact, they probably 

would award less than more in many cases. 

Mr. BISHOP. You are making my point. I thank you for that. 

Mr. DOWDEN. But—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Because—so if it is about traditional modes of instruction I think what I just heard you say is your faculty would 

more likely err on the side of requiring more seat hours as opposed 

to fewer, am I right? 

Mr. DOWDEN. Perhaps in traditional modes of instruction. But 

there are a lot of other modes of instruction that the practicums 

and other—— 

Mr. BISHOP. I understand that. That is what I am trying to focus 

in on. 

Mr. DOWDEN [continuing]. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. This issue is largely, if not exclusively, about nontraditional modes of instruction. Is that not correct? 

Mr. DOWDEN. It depends on how you define non-traditional 

modes. Is a practicum a non-traditional mode, I—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes, yes it is. 

Mr. DOWDEN. Yes, I would—probably largely, about that. Although, take a music class, let’s say a student might have an hour 

but might be practicing for 8 or 10 hours during the week as opposed to a class in sociology where it would be fair standard with 

the definition that we are proposing. So it is not largely the nontraditional as you would define it but it would apply to the traditional classes as well. 
65 

Mr. BISHOP. Tell me what is so hard about determining an equivalent? My daughter just got a Masters in Library Science. She took 

some of her course work online, through a New York State institution which was required to assert that the instruction she took had 

its equivalent in 45, 50-minute hours. 

Now what is—why can that institution do it but this is going to 

create an enormous burden? I know I am over my time Madam 

Chair. 

Mr. DOWDEN. Well, the key is that that institution did that, it 

wasn’t some definition of the federal government that is pretty unclear about how you determine equivalency. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, at the risk of—indulge me. It was pursuant to 

a New York State requirement that has existed at least as long as 

I have been involved which was 1973. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you Mr. Bishop and thank you for 

being sensitive to the time. 

I want to raise one example that I observed when I was in administration in a university. We often would have students who 

would come in and say that they had the knowledge to pass a 

course and would ask to take the final exam and they could pass 

that final exam and then they were awarded the credit for the 

course. 

As I read the regulations, there is no way to take care of that 

situation, and I think there are lots of others so I think Mr. Bishop, 

both of us having had some experience in university and college we 

could probably find lots of situations that aren’t going to meet the 

definition of this regulation that are common practice right now 

within institutions and don’t even deal with the new learning experiences. 

Thank you for indulging me on that comment. I now am keeping 

the chairman of the committee waiting and I apologize for that. I 

would like to recognize Mr. Kline. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you Madam Chair. I am feeling very humbled 

here in the presence of Mr. Bishop and Mrs. Foxx and their many, 

many years of experience in higher education. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, you will get over it I am sure. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KLINE. I think I just did, thank you very much. 

And Madam Inspector General, we are very pleased to have you 

here today and I don’t have a series of questions for you but I do 

have a plea, a statement and a plea. We had the Secretary here 

yesterday and I posed a question for the record, for him, on this 

issue of short selling. It is a very, very troubling issue. We hope 

that you are looking at this vigorously. We hope that there is cooperation with the SEC and that we will get an answer. 

Clearly, the impact on the entire sector, we saw stock prices 

move radically and rapidly and the potential for real mischief and 

felony activity is high. So I really hope that you will look into that 

and come back to us quickly with those results. 

Let me see, stepping off into this continuing discussion about the 

federal definition of the credit hour. Mr. Wolff, you said in your testimony that you thought that it would stifle innovation. But I understand there is an alternative in the regulation that was sup-
66 

posed to address this, why isn’t that good enough? Can you tell 

us—and we don’t—I don’t think any of us here want to stifle innovation and the ability to move out and meet the demands of the 

work place. So why isn’t that alternative good enough? 

Mr. WOLFF. It is a fair question. I would personally say that to 

many of us the definition itself is unclear because it uses so many 

terms. It—I will just read to you some of the terms, ‘‘intended 

learning outcomes, verified by student achievements, reasonable 

equivalency, classroom seat time’’ so that you put all of these together and then accreditors are supposed to assure that the assignment of credit meets customary practice. Well is it the federal definition or is it customary practice? 

So, the definition itself is unclear. And what institutions have 

told us, they are afraid that whatever it is they do, that it may be 

possible to be found out of compliance. 

Secondly, institutions are held to be responsible to ensure the 

‘‘reliability and accuracy of the credit assignment.’’ There are many 

concerns of how does one verify that without an enormous expenditure of time. 

Thirdly, there are, as others have said, new models that are coming forward. Carnegie Mellon for example has developed a computer based learning model that is shown to establish very effective 

learning outcomes with very little faculty interaction. It is not 

based on seat time. It is based on learning objectives. 

Here the question is: which is going to take priority, the learning 

objectives or the amount of work correlated to seat time? 

We are trying to move institutions to learning outcomes particularly as they coalesce or cohere together toward a complete set of 

outcomes at the degree level. This drives the whole conversation to 

a lower unit of analysis at the course level and we have heard that 

people are concerned that they are going to be found out of compliance and subject their entire financial aid at risk if they fail to 

meet the federal definition. 

Having this in the regulation federalizes and potentially increases the risk of violating a very confusing set of criteria. 

Mr. KLINE. So they are just afraid to try? 

Mr. WOLFF. I am sorry I didn’t—— 

Mr. KLINE. So they are just afraid to try, is what you are—— 

Mr. WOLFF. I think that we may find, that at least some faculty 

committees will say, well—they are going to be focusing on the federal definition rather than what the institution is trying to accomplish. 

I think it is going to shift the focus and I think it may be up with 

others saying this may not meet the definition because it will inhibit experimentation. 

Let me also say that individual faculty members take a syllabus 

and try to play with it to improve learning. Do out of class assignments, some students are going to take more time than others. I 

think that is what it is going to inhibit the most because the institution is going to say, you can’t do too much experimentation because you are violating the federal standard here. And it may inhibit individual faculty members from trying new approaches. 

Mr. KLINE. Okay, I can see that my time is just about to expire. 

Yes, Dr. Dowden, jump in. 
67 

Mr. DOWDEN. I was just going to say, I think if this definition 

goes through I would suspect that our faculty would need to review 

every single class we have and try to see if the credit hour allocation is appropriate and that would take a significant amount of 

time and really would deflect from the learning experience and emphasis on our students. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you. I yield back Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FOXX. I thank the chairman for being so punctual. 

It occurred to me as you were talking Mr. Wolff that this sounds 

like No Child Left Behind, applied to the universities and colleges. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Andrews. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you Madam Chairwoman. Congratulations 

on your election as chair of the subcommittee. It is good to be working with you. 

And I thank the panel for being really expert, getting us into the 

details of this issue. And as a layperson I would like to leave the 

details for a minute and get to maybe 10,000 feet and ask a couple 

of questions at that level. 

I think there is universal agreement that students need to get 

what they paid for and they need some kind of standard that helps 

them know whether they are getting what they pay for. 

So the hypothesis behind the regulation on credit hour would be 

that there is rather systemic evidence that students aren’t getting 

what they pay for. So therefore it is necessary to switch to a system where there is a federal, legal definition of credit hours so people can get what they pay for. This is kind of what this is about. 

And I want to ask the Inspector General—I know we had this 

report from last June—about the Northern Central accreditation 

problem. What other evidence is there? And that really was, as I 

understand it, one school that raised an issue and it was remedied. 

What evidence is there of any systemic failure of the status quo 

system on credit hour regulation? 

Ms. TIGHE. Well, I think as far as the particular issue we looked 

at with the Higher Learning Commission, I would point out to my 

fellow panelists who raised this issue, that when we submitted our 

alert report to the Department it immediately went in and looked 

at the Higher Learning Commission and examined further institutions in addition to the ones that we had looked at. 

Mr. ANDREWS. And what did they find? 

Ms. TIGHE. They found the instance we found with AIU was not 

an isolated incident. 

Mr. ANDREWS. How many others did they find? 

Ms. TIGHE. I can’t say that based on that, but I know that they 

found others. And I think if—— 

Mr. ANDREWS. With all due respect, I would ask you to submit 

for the record, a quantification of that comment. I mean if it is four 

others that is not much concern. If it is 4,000 it is a major—— 

Ms. TIGHE. Okay. I don’t think it was 4,000. I don’t think they 

would have looked at that many schools but we can let—we 

can—— 

Mr. ANDREWS. What about other accreditation agencies beyond 

the Northern Central one? 

Ms. TIGHE. Well, we know that the Higher Learning Commission 

was not the only—Higher Learning Commission is the largest re-
68 

gional, it accredits 975 schools. We looked at two other very large 

regional accrediting agencies. We also found they didn’t—we didn’t 

find the particular problems in the schools, but we also find they 

didn’t define or give standards to a credit hour or assignment of a 

credit hour. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I do understand and we very much appreciated 

your testimony last June, when you pointed that out. But let me 

sort of summarize what I think the record shows. 

There was some examination of three accreditation agencies. The 

first is the Northern Central one and you said there is ‘‘some evidence of other problems at other schools.’’ We would invite you to 

supplement the record of what that is. 

And then the other two, the evidence shows that there wasn’t a 

standard or guidance articulated, but was there any evidence of 

students not getting what they pay for in those two regions? 

Ms. TIGHE. Well, I would say—well my answer to that would be 

its sort of hard to tell without some uniform guidance on what a 

credit hour means. And I think in that lies the heart of the problem. I will say, I don’t think the Department based its definition 

of a credit hour or the fact that it wanted to have a definition of 

a credit hour, based on our work. I think that may have fed into 

the discussion related to it, but I think they had other concerns 

based on information that—— 

Mr. ANDREWS. My time is kind of fleeting here. I hope that is not 

a generic statement, or should be for this hearing. 

I understand that, although that kind of goes to the point of my 

question. Your work is to uncover, frankly, abuses of the law and 

taxpayer’s dollars. And if there are such, let’s fix it. But if the rules 

aren’t based on your work, and I realize this is not your answer 

to give, but what is it, what are they based on? 

So that—the concern that I have is that if the evidence shows 

that there is systemic cheating of students and taxpayers because 

of the credit hour status quo I think we should fix it. But if the 

record shows that there isn’t, then I wonder if this is not a solution 

in search of a problem. 

And if there is a problem here I think you are going to find a 

lot of support for fixing it. But I am one who wants to see the evidence of that before we take position. 

I would just also ask to submit for the record, a letter of February 16th, from The American Council on Education, Office of the 

President, if I could. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Without objection. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much for your sensitivity to 

the time. 

Also, Mr. Tierney? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you Madam Chairwoman. I want to thank 

all of the witnesses for their testimony. This is an interesting area, 

or at least I have found it interesting. Since the enrollments in online courses have started to increase, and I have always sort of 

struggled with the idea of how is there is an increase in, obviously, 

grant money—Pell grant money—and everything goes in that direction. The taxpayers’ concern that they are getting their money’s 

worth increases along with that. 
69 

So if we don’t have some standard or baseline against which to 

judge it, how do you propose we are going to be able to convince 

the taxpayer that their investments are well founded? Sir. 

Mr. EBERSOLE. I have been involved both as a chair of an accreditation team, recently. I also have been very involved with the 

President’s forum where we have been looking at the creation of a 

method by which we can assess learning outcomes. This is something that has been incorporated into the standards of the middle 

states accreditation and I suspect others as well. 

We are looking at outcomes. We are looking at proof of learning 

and we are looking to make that proof of learning objective. And 

we also are publicizing it so that others can look at this proof of 

learning before making a decision as to whether to come to our institution. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Can you give me an idea of what would constitute 

proof or evidence of learning? 

Mr. EBERSOLE. Yes. Using objective criteria or objective instruments such as the standardized examinations, which are coming 

from the University of Indiana, the piece all. These are examinations which show the degree to which our students are, learning, 

and gives us the ability to compare—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. Sounds suspiciously like No Child Left Behind, for 

all the people behind, written for all the people here. You are going 

to—I mean are you going to be teaching to the test? Are we going 

to see all this fight and battle back and forth again? 

Mr. EBERSOLE. Well, we don’t have access to the test so we 

couldn’t really teach to it. It is really very objective and we are 

using multiple methodologies. It is not a single methodology. And 

I suggest to you sir, that the measurement of seat time is kind of 

like measuring the number of books in the library and the number 

of dollars in the endowment as a way of defining quality. I don’t 

believe that inputs tell us very much at all about what our tax payers are buying. 

Mr. TIERNEY. I don’t necessarily disagree with what you are saying. I am just struggling with the idea of a course, some of the sociology courses, some history courses of different areas, other broader 

subjects like that a different faculty may attack those from different ways. 

I am having a difficult time struggling with how one test is going 

to satisfy all the different universities that may get people a lot of 

knowledge, just not the same set of knowledge on that. And I think 

you are going to have some difficulty probably dealing with that 

issue. 

Mr. EBERSOLE. Well, we are looking at some standards which 

have had some agreement relative to what it is we think that 

someone who possesses our degree, our faculty have come together 

and says that someone who is awarded a degree from our institution should be able to do the following. Whether that degree is in 

business, or liberal arts, or versing, they need to be able to think 

critically. 

They need to be able to communicate with both the written and 

the oral word. There are absolutely things which we believe define 

a baccalaureate education, and that is what we are testing for. 
70 

Mr. TIERNEY. Dr. Tighe, do you think that would be a good substitution for the credit hour measure? 

Ms. TIGHE. Well, I think student outcomes and a credit hour as 

defined by the Department are not inconsistent. What worries me, 

and what I hear here is that in the end you have to be a full-time 

student to get a full time—you know, a full time amount of student 

aid. What does that mean if you can’t put some temporal, you 

know, measure on it that measures student engagement in some 

fashion? 

And I am not sure, without some definition of a credit hour— 

which does allow you for equivalents—you can get there. 

Mr. TIERNEY. To the other three panelists, if the regulation were 

better defined, if you could read it and easily understand what it 

said, would you have less of an objection or would you still be objecting on a philosophical level that you just don’t want that standard or any standard in that regard? Mr. Wolff. Well, I am going 

to ask Mr. Wolff, he was in the—— 

Mr. WOLFF. I would still have concern in the sense that, I would 

agree with Dr. Dowden, that I think what institutions have to do 

is assure the reliability of every course offered and that the scale 

of this is quite extraordinary. 

Mr. TIERNEY. How do you do that, though? I mean, you keep saying that over again. Is it subjective? Are you sort of taking nods, 

saying I like that, I don’t like something else? I mean, if you don’t 

have a standard that is more tangible like a credit hour or something like that, do you just go in as a team and you say I don’t like 

the way the professor is approaching it? What do you—— 

Mr. WOLFF. There is not—I think it is important to say, first of 

all, there is not a vacuum. Institutions already are doing this. 

There are faculty committees that review courses that look at the 

assignment of credit in relationship to the rigor. It is being done. 

The issue is, the federal definition that—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. Okay, so you are out—you think that schools regulating themselves give the taxpayer the protection that they need 

to know that no school is dumbing it down or avoiding anything? 

Mr. WOLFF. Well, in line with what Mr. Andrews was saying, 

that we asked repeatedly at the negotiated rule making, what is 

the scope of this problem so that we could help define a resolution. 

And we were never told what the scope was, beyond this one incident. So arguably, it ought—it is being done and we are not clear 

that what is being done is ineffective. 

Secondly, I can say that there already are existing regulations 

with the Department of Education that we must conform to that 

require us to approve an advanced distance education programs 

where we are looking at this. 

And secondly, to review, assure that all of our standards are 

being applied when we do reviews of institutions. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you Mr. Wolff, and thank you Mr. 

Tierney. 

Someone just pointed out to me that the fact that you and I are 

agreeing on this and Mr. Andrews said, ‘‘it looks like a solution in 

search of a problem’’ was something I said yesterday. Something 

must be happening here that we are agreeing. 
71 

I would like to recognize now Ms. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you Madam Chairman. It is always a problem 

when you walk in after—excuse me, after a lot of questions. But 

let me—if I could just go back a second, because I know you have 

been talking about the type of standards that the accrediting agencies use when they are trying to accredit colleges and universities. 

Is that clear? Do those vary from state to state as well, when we 

are talking about this credit hour? 

Mr. DOWDEN. I would say they vary from institution to institution based on the knowledge of a faculty. The review of—a careful 

review of the faculty on what constitutes a credit hour and then I 

would recommend that that be held accountable, those credit hour 

allocations be held accountable by the accrediting associations rather than through a credit hour definition. 

Mr. EBERSOLE. I would like to say that for those of us in the online arena, this is a problem. We don’t know exactly what the 

equivalent, acceptable equivalency is going to look like. There are 

definitely going to be differences of interpretation. Why we feel like 

that, rather than trying to say how much time does someone sit in 

front of a computer or how much time does one take before sitting 

for one of our assessments of prior learning, that in fact we look 

at the outcomes that are being produced by our institution. 

That I think is what the taxpayer is paying for and the student 

is paying for. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Dr. Tighe, would you say that in trying to bring that 

together that you were consulting these different agencies, how did 

you actually arrive at that in the first place? And perhaps you have 

already discussed this, I am sorry. 

Ms. TIGHE. I am sorry? 

Mrs. DAVIS. The federal definition of the credit hour? 

Ms. TIGHE. Well, the federal definition of a credit hour is not 

something we define. What we recommended in our work is that 

there be some definition of a credit hour. We did not dictate what 

that definition would be. 

We felt in our work in looking at the accrediting agencies and 

saw that there was no definition by which they were judging the 

institutions that they accredit, that that led to some inconsistencies 

in how those credit hours were being assigned. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Does it—is it your belief though that it should ensure flexibility in the way that—— 

Ms. TIGHE. Our reading of the definition is that it looks like it 

provides flexibility. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. WOLFF. Could I add that there are seven regional commissions, all of us focus on learning outcomes. Not only is it a federal 

requirement is our belief that constitutes real quality and will lead 

to excellence. 

We focus on the outcomes of the certificate or degree program. 

We assure that the courses are aligned to achieve it and that the 

outcomes build together to that. We all work together acceptable 

models, not a single model of a test or—we use portfolios, CapStone courses and the like. 

So we do look at credit hours, but more importantly we look at, 

does it bring together to a set of learning outcomes that are appro-
72 

priate for the degree or certificate being awarded. There is a great 

consistency across the seven regions. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Dr. Tighe, what kind of assistance is being granted 

to—just give some technical assistance—to folks that are going to 

be trying to comply with this? 

Ms. TIGHE. I can’t exactly speak for the Department but I am 

aware that they are trying to come out with guidance in these 

areas to further explain the issues that have been raised in the 

regulations. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Do you have a sense, I guess all of you, what is it 

that you most think is going to be needed as you move forward 

with this in terms of being clear about what is going on? 

Mr. DOWDEN. If I could say, there is 100 days until these regulations have to be implemented. And I think the regulations are not 

clear. We really don’t have a lot of guidance from the Department 

of Education on how to implement them. 

The states don’t have a lot of guidance on how to implement the 

state authorization and I think it’s going to be an interesting 100 

days if these, the credit hour and state authorization provisions remain in the statutes. 

Mr. EBERSOLE. In the area of state authorization there is no way 

that we can be in compliance. The states won’t be in the position 

to accept our applications, will not be in a position to review them 

or act on them. Some states have program reviews which require 

stacks and stacks of documents covering every single course and 

every single faculty member in those programs. 

It took us 400 hours in one state just to register two programs. 

To think that 3,000 institutions with hundreds of programs will be 

able to register in these states is, frankly, not realistic. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you Mrs. Davis. And I want to again, 

thank the witnesses for the taking of your time today. I want to 

thank all of the members of the subcommittee who came and have 

been so judicious in sticking to the time. We are very grateful to 

you. I am very grateful for the information you have shared with 

us. 

Mr. Hinojosa, do you have any closing remarks you would like 

to make? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I would just like to thank the presenters. I would 

insist that you have given us good information that we can work 

from. And that we are going to be working with all of our colleges 

and universities to help them be able to do their work. I know that 

this is the time in our country where legislators are cutting back 

on their investment in higher education and it is quite challenging 

for you to do your work. 

So we need to work together. It is important and I am one that 

believes that there should be definitions and regulations so that 

they aren’t being interpreted differently by others and thus not 

doing what we should for our students. 

And since we have so much federal money that is going towards 

getting our students educated, I think it is our responsibility in 

Congress to take that as one of the priorities that in this committee 

we are going to see that is clear and doable. 

And so with that, Madam Chair, thank you for calling this hearing today and we will continue working with you. 
73 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much Mr. Hinojosa. 

There being no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Additional submission of Mrs. Foxx follows:] 
74 
75 
76 

[Identical letter submitted by Mr. Andrews and Mr. Wolff follows:] 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 

[Additional submission of Ms. Tighe follows:] 

Supplemental Material Submitted by Ms. Tighe 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, and members of the Committee: Thank 

you for inviting me here today to discuss the U.S. Department of Education (Department) Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) reviews of accrediting agencies’ standards 

for program length in higher education. This is my first opportunity to testify before 

Congress since my March confirmation as the Inspector General. It is an honor to 

lead this organization with its long history of accomplishment and to have the opportunity to work with this Committee, which has led the way in improving Federal 

education programs and operations so they meet the needs of America’s students 

and families. 

As requested, I will provide information on our work involving standards for program length and the definition of a credit hour—critically important issues in the 
82 

Federal student aid programs, as the amount of Federal student aid a student can 

receive is based on the number of credit hours for which a student is enrolled. 

This issue has become even more significant as on-line education has exploded in 

recent years, making credit hour assignment difficult, its comparison to traditional 

classroom delivery a challenge, and its value increasingly important in order to ensure that students and taxpayers get what they are paying for. 

Background on the OIG and Accrediting Agencies 

For 30 years, the OIG has worked to promote the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of Federal education programs and operations. We conduct independent audits, inspections, investigations, and other reviews, and based on our findings, make 

recommendations to the Department to address systemic weaknesses and recommend to both the Department and Congress needed changes in Federal laws. 

As members of this Committee know, the Federal student aid programs have long 

been a major focus of our audit, inspection, and investigative work, as they have 

been considered the most susceptible to fraud and abuse. The programs are large, 

complex, and inherently risky due to their design, reliance on numerous entities, 

and the nature of the student population. OIG has produced volumes of significant 

work involving the Federal student aid programs, leading to statutory changes to 

the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), as well as regulatory and Departmental operational changes. This includes extensive work involving accrediting 

agencies. Accrediting agencies are private educational associations that develop 

evaluation criteria and conduct peer reviews of institutions of higher education to 

ensure that the instruction provided by those institutions meets acceptable levels 

of quality. The role they play is vital, as accreditation is one of the primary requirements for an institution’s participation in the Federal student aid programs and determines whether academic programs merit taxpayer support. 

Under the HEA, the Department is dependent on the accrediting agencies recognized by the Secretary of Education (Secretary) to ensure that institutions provide 

quality, content, and academic rigor at the postsecondary level. The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 included a provision that prohibits the Department 

from developing minimum regulatory criteria for an accrediting agency’s standards 

for accreditation. The Department of Education Organization Act of 1980 prohibits 

the Department from making determinations on curriculum and educational quality. 

Thus, the Department is prohibited from determining the quality of education funded by Federal education dollars. All it can do with regard to evaluating the quality 

of postsecondary education is recognize accrediting agencies as reliable authorities 

for the quality of education funded by Federal dollars. In 1992, Congress established 

the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity—an independent body charged with doing what the Department cannot: evaluating the adequacy of accrediting agencies’ standards for accreditation and making recommendations to the Secretary as to those agencies that should be recognized. That input 

is vital, as the recognition of accrediting agencies by the Secretary is the primary 

tool available to the Department for ensuring that students receive value for the 

taxpayer investment in postsecondary education. 

OIG Work Involving Accrediting Agencies 

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, OIG identified significant problems with some 

accrediting agencies’ oversight of program length at some institutions. Our work 

contributed to significantly strengthening the requirements accrediting agencies 

needed to meet for recognition by the Secretary in the Higher Education Act 

Amendments of 1992. The Amendments also mandated that an academic year, for 

undergraduate programs, must be a minimum of 30 weeks of instructional time in 

which a full-time student is expected to complete at least 24 credit hours. The Department faced difficulty in applying this requirement to programs measuring student progress in credit hours but not using a semester, trimester, or quarter system, 

including nontraditional educational delivery methods. Therefore, the Department 

established the regulatory 12-Hour Rule. The 12-Hour Rule served as a surrogate 

for the Carnegie formula, which provided the standard unit of measuring credit in 

higher education, whereby one credit hour generally consisted of one hour of classroom work and two hours of outside preparation over the course of the academic 

year. ‘‘One hour of classroom work’’ is defined as 50 to 60 minutes. Under this method, a full-time student in an education program using a semester, trimester, or 

quarter system would have a workload of 36 hours per week through the academic 

year (12 hours of classroom work and 24 hours of outside preparation per week). 

At the time, there was an assumption that the traditional semester, trimester, and 

quarter system provided a minimum level of instruction and that these programs 

closely followed the Carnegie formula. 
83 

The 12-Hour Rule provided a tool for the Department to help ensure that students 

received a given quantity of instruction. The Department relied on accrediting agencies to ensure that the quantity and quality of instruction was at the postsecondary 

level. The assumption was that a full-time student attempting 12 credit hours in 

a semester would have 12 hours of scheduled instruction per week. In 2000, we performed an audit where we found that an institution’s programs offered much less 

classroom education than programs provided by traditional termbased institutions 

and that the institution was in violation of the 12-Hour Rule. A series of audits over 

the next two years identified other institutions that were in violation of the 12-Hour 

Rule. 

In 2002, the Department eliminated the 12-Hour Rule in favor of the One-Day 

Rule. Under this regulation, an institution is required to provide one day of regularly scheduled instruction during each week in an academic year. However, neither 

the HEA nor the implementing regulations define what constitutes instruction or 

the minimum amount of instruction that needs to be provided during the required 

one day of instruction. At the time of the change, much like today, there were many 

different delivery methods for instruction: the traditional residential term-based 

programs; residential programs not offered on a semester, trimester, or quarter system; correspondence courses; telecommunications programs; and independent study. 

There was no specificity in what could be included as instruction for determining 

an institution’s academic year and credit hours for the awarding of Federal student 

aid funds. 

We informed the Department about our concern with the elimination of the 12- 

Hour Rule, as well as the need to address the definition of instruction, the appropriate amount of Federal student aid to be awarded in non-traditional programs, 

and accrediting agency oversight of nontraditional programs. As a result of this concern, in 2002-2003, we took another look at this issue and examined two regional 

accrediting agencies and two national accrediting agencies, evaluating their standards for program length and student achievement. The scope of recognition for regional accrediting agencies is limited to specific states for each accrediting agency, 

while the scope of national accrediting agencies is not limited to specific states. We 

found: 

Program Length 

• Neither regional agency had a definition of a credit hour that it required its institutions to follow. The standards these regional agencies applied to program 

length were vague and without definition, effectively allowing institutions to establish their own standards; and • The two national agencies both had a definition of a credit hour in terms of the 

required hours of instruction needed to equate to a credit hour. 

Student Achievement 

• The regional agencies had not established minimum graduation, placement, and 

licensure rates for any of their institutions providing vocational education programs. 

For all education programs, these regional agencies permitted institutions to establish their own standards for student achievement, without any specified minimum 

standard; and • The national agencies had established minimum graduation, placement, and 

state licensure rates for the institutions they accredited. However, at both agencies 

we identified problems in the methodology by which the rates were calculated that 

caused the rates to be overstated. 

As a result of these findings and in anticipation of the scheduled 2004 reauthorization of the HEA, we made a recommendation that Congress establish a statutory 

definition of a credit hour stating: ‘‘For programs that are not offered in clock-hours, 

credit hours are the basis for determining the amount of aid students are eligible 

for. Absent a definition of a credit hour, there are no measures in the [Higher Education Act] or regulations to ensure comparable funding across different types of 

educational programs.’’ The recommendation was not included in the reauthorization. 

Recent OIG Reviews 

As a follow-up to this work and in anticipation of the 2009-2010 higher education 

negotiated rulemaking sessions in which the definition of a credit hour was to be 

discussed, OIG once again examined the issue in order to provide the Department 

with facts on program length and the definition of a credit hour in negotiated rulemaking and to provide information to Congress on the state of the definition of a 

credit hour at regional accrediting agencies. As regional accreditation has long been 

considered the ‘‘gold standard’’ in accreditation and information on what the regional accrediting agencies were doing with regard to credit hours could greatly in-
84 

form the regulatory process, we determined that we would do reviews at the three 

largest of the seven regional accrediting agencies. The three accrediting agencies 

were: the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges 

(SACS); the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (Middle States); and 

the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and 

Schools (HLC). These three accrediting agencies represent one-third of the institutions participating in Federal student aid programs: 2,222 postsecondary institutions with more than $60 billion in Federal student aid funding. 

Our objectives were to determine: (1) what guidance the accrediting agencies provide to institutions regarding program length and credit hours; (2) what guidance 

the accrediting agencies provide to peer reviewers to assess program length and 

credit hours when evaluating institutions; and (3) what documentation the accrediting agencies maintain to demonstrate how they evaluate institutions’ program 

length and credit hours. We found that none of the accrediting agencies defined a 

credit hour and none of the accrediting agencies provided guidance on the minimum 

requirements for the assignment of credit hours. At two of the accrediting agencies 

(HLC and Middle States), we were told that student learning outcomes were more 

important than the assignment of credit hours; however, these two accrediting agencies provided no guidance to institutions or peer reviewers on acceptable minimum 

student learning outcomes at the postsecondary level. The following is a summary 

of our results at each accrediting agency: 

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges 

• SACS provides guidance to institutions regarding program length and the required number of credit hours; however, it does not provide guidance on the minimum requirements for the assignment of credit hours or the definition of a credit 

hour; • SACS provides guidance to reviewers regarding the assessment of program 

length, but does not provide reviewers guidance regarding the assessment of credit 

hours; and • SACS maintains documentation to demonstrate that it evaluates institutions’ 

program length and credit hours. 

Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools 

• Middle States does not have minimum requirements specific to program length 

and does not have minimum requirements for the assignment of credit hours; and • Middle States senior staff stated that their main focus was on student learning 

outcomes; however, we did not find that Middle States provided any guidance to institutions and peer reviewers on minimum outcome measures to ensure that courses 

and programs are sufficient in content and rigor. 

Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and 

Schools 

• HLC’s standards for accreditation do not establish the definition of a credit hour 

or set minimum requirements for program length and the assignment of credit 

hours; • HLC does not provide specific guidance to peer reviewers on how to evaluate 

the appropriateness of an institution’s processes for determining program length 

and assigning credit hours or on the minimum level of acceptability for accreditation 

when evaluating these processes; • HLC maintains self-studies and team reports as documentation of its evaluation 

of institutions’ program lengths and credit hours, but the amount of information related to program length and credit hours that institutions and peer reviewers included in these respective documents varied; and • HLC determines whether institutions assess student learning outcomes; however, it does not define a minimum threshold for when the measures of achievement 

for student learning outcomes indicate poor educational or programmatic quality. 

While conducting our inspection at HLC, we identified a serious issue that we 

brought to the Department’s attention through an Alert Memorandum, HLC evaluated American InterContinental University (AIU)—a for-profit institution owned by 

Career Education Corporation (CEC)—for initial accreditation and identified issues 

related to the school’s assignment of credit hours to certain undergraduate and 

graduate programs. HLC found the school to have an ‘‘egregious’’ credit policy that 

was not in the best interest of students, but nonetheless accredited AIU. HLC’s accreditation of AIU calls into question whether it is a reliable authority regarding 

the quality of education or training provided by the institution. Since HLC determined that the practices at AIU meet its standards for quality, without limitation, 

we believe that the Department should be concerned about the quality of education 

or training at other institutions accredited by HLC. Based on this finding, our Alert 
85 

Memorandum recommended that the Department determine whether HLC is in 

compliance with the regulatory requirements for accrediting agencies and, if not, 

take appropriate action under the regulations to limit, suspend, or terminate HLC’s 

recognition by the Secretary. The Department initiated a review of HLC and determined that the issue identified was not an isolated incident. As a result, the Department gave HLC two options for coming into compliance: (1) to accept a set of corrective actions determined by the Department; or (2) the Department would initiate a 

limitation, suspension, or termination action. In May 2010, HLC accepted the Department’s corrective action plan. 

Current Status 

With the explosion of on-line postsecondary education and accelerated programs, 

the value of a credit hour becomes increasingly important to ensure that students 

and taxpayers get what they are paying for. Currently, the Federal student aid programs are primarily dependent on the credit hour for making funding decisions, as 

are other forms of aid, including state student aid programs and certain programs 

administered through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. To help address 

this, the Department will soon be issuing a definition of a credit hour through a 

notice of proposed rulemaking that we understand will be issued on June 18. Once 

a final rule is adopted by the Department, we will be closely watching its implementation and evaluating whether the definition of a credit hour is effective in protecting students and taxpayers. 

Closing Remarks 

We view the recognition of accrediting agencies by the Secretary as the primary 

tool available to the Department for ensuring that students receive value for the 

taxpayer investment in postsecondary education. As the Department is prohibited 

from developing minimum regulatory criteria for an accrediting agency’s standards 

for accreditation or making determinations on curriculum and educational quality, 

it is not unreasonable for the Department to expect an accrediting agency to have 

developed its own minimum standards. 

On behalf of the OIG, I want to thank you for the support Congress has given 

to this office over the years. We look forward to working with the 111th Congress 

in furthering our mutual goal of protecting students and serving the taxpayers. 

This concludes my written statement. I am happy to answer any of your questions. 

[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ