Date: Febr uar y 14, 2024 

To: U.S. Depar tm ent of Education 

From: Jo Blondin an d Michael Cioce, Com m unity Colleges

Er ika Linden an d Scott Dolan, Pr ivate-Nonpr ofit Institutions of Higher Education

JoEllen Pr ice and Zach ar y Goodwin, Financial Aid Representatives

Jillian Klein, Pr opr ietar y Institutions of Higher Education

Re: Issue Paper 3—Distance Education 

The Departm ent of Education has proposed m odifications to 34 C.F.R. § 600.2, Definitions, that 

looks to remove asynchronous learning as an option in clock hour program s. The Departm ent 

notes that the proposed changes will strengthen the Departm ent’s ability to m onitor clock hour 

program s offered via distance education, including the Departm ent’s ability to protect students 

from, and keep taxpayer funds from going to program s failing to provide the required training. 

Further the Departm ent has becom e aware of instances in which clock-hour programs offered 

through distance education have not complied with this requirement and students have not 

received the required training” 

In the summary of issues, the Departm ent expresses concerns about the ability of institutions to 

m onitor academ ic engagem ent in asynchronous delivery, “because it requires technical 

expertise and the Departm ent has lim ited information on which clock-hour programs are 

offered via distance education, including whether a program is offered through synchronous or 

asynchronous instruction.”

Context

Following the January sessions, negotiators representing private, nonprofit institutions of 

higher education, Erika Linden (prim ary) and Scott Dolan (secondary) subm itted a data request 

to the Departm ent which sought m ore detailed inform ation and clarification in the following 

areas: 1) the total number and diversity of program s utilizing clock hours; 2) the extent to which 

those clock hour programs were using asynchronous components; 3) examples and evidence of 

the Departm ent’s challenges in regulating academ ic engagem ent in clock hour program s; 4) the 

extent to which the Department has communicated its compliance expectations; and 5) the 

overall im pact of non-compliance on the public.

In seeking this information, negotiators were trying to get a better understanding of the 

Departm ent’s concerns, the extent to which they are applicable to clock hour programs, and the 

general rates and impact of noncompliance.

Str uctur e of Clock Hour Pr ogr am s an d Deliver y

In considering the Departm ent’s proposal, it is im portant to keep in m ind the structure of clock 

hour program s. Contrary to som e sentiments expressed during negotiations, clock hour 

programs offer more than just practical, hands-on learning. They also contain substantial 

amounts of didactic instruction, which has traditionally been delivered in a lecture-style 

environment, but m easured in clock hours. 
Institutions design clock hour programs with three components: theory, lab, and clinical 

instruction. The theory phase typically relies on didactic instruction. It delivers the 

foundational knowledge necessary to prepare students to confidently and safely enter the lab 

environm ent. Subjects covered vary depending on the specific program of study. Students 

attend classroom lecture akin to those in credit hour programs.

In the laboratory phase, students apply the knowledge obtained in theory in the controlled 

environm ent. Students are supervised by instructors who provide active feedback and guide 

students in learning the skills necessary to move into the clinical environment. 

Clinical instruction requires students to apply their knowledge and skills in real world 

environments under the supervision of instructors. This affords students the opportunity to 

practice and perfect their skills in the learning environment prior to course completion.

Required Training 

For licensed and other regulated occupations, states prescribe the required curriculum for 

institutions. Each program must contain content that meets the state requirements, and there 

are results-based m easures available to accreditors of these programs that can be used to assess 

the overall quality of the program. 

For program s such as nursing, welding, electrical technician, HVAC, cosm etology, barbering, 

automotive technician, aviation-related fields, and others leading to licensed occupations, states 

frequently require instruction in clock hours. In some instances, e.g. aviation, federal agencies 

regulate the nature and amount of clock hour instruction. 

During and following the COVID-19 pandemic, states permitted institutions to provide clock 

hour instruction remotely and in an asynchronous environment. In either instance, clock hours 

continue to be m easured using the standard of 50-60 instructional minutes in a 60 min period of 

attendance per clock hour of credit awarded. 

We also understand the im portance of balancing the need for practical training delivered in a 

live environm ent. The hands-on nature of the skills necessary for some occupations and learned 

in laboratory and clinical instruction means that they require components of learning that are 

provided in a synchronous, brick-and-mortar environment. Given this, we suggest lim iting the 

amount of clock hours that can be delivered asynchronously, which will address any concerns 

the Departm ent has raised about students having the opportunity to obtain the required 

training. 

Lack of Technical Exper tise

The Departm ent has expressed concern that institutions m ay lack the expertise or technology 

necessary to track student interaction in sufficient detail to allow for adequate supervision and 

monitoring of students. It is evident that this is not the case.

The Departm ent addressed this concern in the com m ent section of the 2020 Final Rule on this 

issue. As the Departm ent noted, 
We also believe that comm enters have m ade a strong case that, 

given current technology, clock hours completed 

asynchronously can be adequately supervised and monitored, 

provided the institution m aintains the appropriate technological

resources and internal controls. We disagree with commenters 

who indicated that learning technology is not yet capable of 

monitoring student engagement in this manner, especially since 

the Departm ent has already reviewed and approved clock hour 

programs that used online learning platforms that are capable of 

the required monitoring.

85 Fed. Reg. 54742, 54792 (Sept. 2, 2020)(em phasis added). It is notable that in 2020, the 

Departm ent not only acknowledged the existence of adequate technology to allow institutions to 

m eet its requirem ents, but also that the Departm ent had approved program s with this capability. 

Given that the technology existed in 2020 sufficient to address the Departm ent’s concerns, it 

seems unlikely that in 2024 such technology is no longer available or adequate. 

During the January 9th session afternoon session, the Department also provided an example of a 

cosmetology program that was reviewed and found to have sufficient technology and the 

technical expertise to track clock hours appropriately. Dave Musser from the Departm ent 

noted:

“I'll give the exam ple of the very sophisticated one, the system 

would first do start a video and then identify the individual. And 

then the student would work their way through the learning 

modules, and they were structured in the same way that they 

would have been structured, had the student been sitting in a 

classroom listening to their instructor, and the system 

monitored this- essentially every place the student went, it 

monitored whether the student was answering questions in a 

timely way, that when they were quizzed, and then the student 

had to take a quiz at the end of each module in order to get 

credit for that particular skill that- or that piece of knowledge 

that they were expected to obtain through the program . So at 

the end of it, the system had a report that showed, you know, X 

logged in on this at this time, engaged in this module at this 

tim e. Here's their keystrokes. Here's their quiz. They finished 

the quiz with this score, etc. And the system would then take the 

amount of time that the student was actually engaged in that 

particular m odule, as opposed to just hunting around the site, 

and it would add those minutes toward the students as clock 

hours- com pleted clock hours for Title IV purposes, and if the 

student failed the quiz, then this- then the program would omit 

that hour. It would not count it toward com pletion. And if the 

student was not engaged, if they were in a module that didn't 

require, you know, regular quizzes, then the program would 
notify the student, try to get them back engaged, try to get them 

to actually do more of the interacting with the system, etc.”

It is more likely that this technology has instead advanced in the past four years. Our research 

indicates that a number of options exist for different programs that can support institutions in 

the delivery of asynchronous clock hour education. 

For example, two larger providers of curriculum for cosmetology and barbering programs offer 

solutions that address the Departm ent’s concerns. These providers offer on-line, asynchronous 

instruction of theory portions of cosm etology and barbering educational program s. The 

technology offers comprehensive resources and functionality to support meaningful academic 

engagement and regular substantive interaction while tracking such student engagement and 

attendance in increments of 1-second. If students do not remain engaged, then the systems will 

tim e them out. This results in the student not receiving clock hour credit until they reengage 

with the learning environment. 

Noncompliance with requirements

The Departm ent has com m ented during negotiations that it is aware of instances of noncom pliance with regulation in this area. The Departm ent has been asked to provide evidence or 

data to support this position. However, the Department has thus far declined to provide any. 

We reiterate our request that the Departm ent provide data to support its position on this issue.

In addition, when the Departm ent was asked about the guidance that they have provided 

auditors to monitor compliance, during the February sessions, they noted that they have not 

provided any guidance to auditors, and therefore have not been reviewing institutions for 

noncompliance with the regulation.

Advantages for Students

Allowing students to participate in asynchronous learning for clock hour programs comes with 

several advantages.

First, students enjoy the flexibility. They can choose to attend class on-line when it is 

convenient for their schedule. It allows them to balance college with family care and work 

obligations. This is particularly im portant to Eastern Florida State College working, adult 

students who are able to continue their learning in the HVAC program s while maintaining their 

full-tim e jobs. In fact, Eastern Florida State College’s employer partners have requested these 

asynchronous components for this very reason.

Second, with this flexibility, students can stay enrolled in a full-time program. For example, a 

student can attend a 40-hour a week cosmetology program, attend 30 hours per week in person, 

then 10 hours via asynchronous learning. This would allow her the flexibility to stay in the fulltime program, but also have time to care for her family. Full-time students complete faster than 

part-tim e students. This leads to better completion, licensure, and placement rates. 

Third, students stay engaged. Students enjoy the interaction that on-line platforms offer. For 

clock-hour programs in particular, asynchronous students are actively involved in learning that 
is tracked by the minute. Active learning and frequent formative feedback leads to better 

knowledge attainment and retention.

Finally, students can have more options selecting classes. Institutions with limited space 

resources can dedicate valuable physical spaces to additional lab and clinical facilities instead of 

lecture-style classrooms. This allows institutions to accommodate more students in highdemand fields, cutting wait lists and increasing class options for students. 

In fact, we have discussed this issue with a providers in Oklahom a, who are looking to develop 

A/B schedules for their com puter program m ing (cyber defense, program m ing, graphic design) 

as well as their automotive, welding, electrical technician programs. Hybrid offerings would 

allow them to use their physical space more efficiently and train nearly twice the number of 

students using virtual platforms for the more theoretical, conceptual, and didactic components 

of the curriculum.

Proposal

We suggest m odifying the Departm ent’s proposed elim ination of asynchronous clock hour 

education in an effort to provide a balance between the learning required through the theory, 

lab, and clinical components of clock hour programs. The proposal aims to address the 

Departm ent’s concerns, while m aintaining flexibility for students and institutions. Given the 

general desire of students for more flexibility in learning modalities, not less, and the lack of 

data to support the Departm ent’s approach, we believe this is a viable solution.

The proposed revisions would limit the amount of asynchronous clock hours delivered by 

distance education in any given program to no more than 50% of the total num ber of clock hours 

required to complete the program. 

In proposing this solution, we are mindful that current regulation requires institutions to use 

technology that, “can monitor and document the amount of time that the student participates in 

the activity” and “institution m ust be capable of monitoring a student's attendance in 50 out of 60 

m inutes for each clock hour under this definition.” We feel this language already addresses the 

Departm ent’s stated concerns but would be open to other suggestions about how this language 

can be im proved.

We are also mindful that existing regulation permits distance, asynchronous clock hours only if 

the institution can demonstrate that such hours meet both state regulatory and accreditor 

requirements. We see this as an important component of an outcomes-based review of any 

program—clock hour or otherwise.

Key:
Green- Restored language from current regulation

Blue- Proposed additional language

Part 600.2 Definitions

Clock hour:

(1) A period of tim e consisting of—

(i) A 50- to 60-minute class, lecture, or recitation in a 60-minute period;

(ii) A 50- to 60-minute faculty-supervised laboratory, shop training, or internship in a 60-

minute period;

(iii) Sixty m inutes of preparation in a correspondence course; or

(iv) In distance education, 50 to 60 minutes in a 60-minute period of attendance in—

(A) A synchronous or asynchronous class, lecture, or recitation where there is 

opportunity for direct interaction between the instructor and students; or

(B) An asynchronous learning activity involving academ ic engagem ent in which 

the student interacts with technology that can monitor and document the 

amount of time that the student participates in the activity. 

(2) A clock hour in a distance education program does not meet the requirements of this 

definition if:

(i) it does not m eet all accrediting agency and State requirem ents, or 

(ii) if it exceeds an agency's or State's restrictions on the num ber of clock hours in a 

program that may be offered through distance education, or 

(iii) if it exceeds more than 50% of the total clock hours required to graduate under 

section (1)(iv)(B) of this definition.

(3) An institution m ust be capable of m onitoring a student's attendance in 50 out of 60 m inutes 

for each clock hour under this definition.