is homework technically illegal

Is Homework Illegal? (Arguments In Support and Against)

Homework is not illegal in the United States.

But from a legal standpoint, it is a really fun argument to make!

In this article, we’ll cover some points that you could use for or against the question of the legality of homework, whether you are the student, parent, or teacher in this debate.

Is Homework Illegal? (FOR and AGAINST)

The contents of this web page are for informational purposes only, and nothing you read is intended to be legal advice. Please review our  disclaimer about law/legal-related information on this website  before taking action based upon anything you read or see.

Legal vs Illegal vs Unconstitutional

People have argued that homework is illegal because it counts as a form of “slavery.”

It is illegal to restrict/control with force the movement/life of other individuals if you do not have authority to do so (as parents do with their minor children).

It is illegal to commit the other acts slavery is well known for (assault, harassment, and more).

Not everything that would be unconstitutional (or goes against the stated words in the constitution) would be considered illegal, and vice versa.

For example:

Perhaps then you could argue that forcing kids to do homework is an illegal act, assuming that the threats of consequences are coming from an individual or entity that does not have legal authority to provide the threatened punishments, or those punishments are themselves illegal.

Sounds a lot like the crime of coercion , doesn’t it?

If you want to argue that homework is illegal, look for a statute like coercion to support your argument.

And if you want to use the 13th amendment in support of your case against homework, argue that homework is “unconstitutional” rather than “illegal.”

Consent As The School’s Defense

One of the arguments that homework is illegal or constitutes slavery is that the children do not want to do the homework.

They are being made to do it.

People under the age of 18 in the United States cannot make most decisions for themselves.

The parents have agreed on the children’s behalf to the homework.

Thus, technically, because the parents have voluntarily sent their children to the school, the parents have voluntarily consented to the homework, and the consequences of not doing the homework.

The child might not consent to the homework, but in the end, the parents have given their agreement.

The parents take the children to the school.

And since a crime like coercion requires that the act (the homework) be an act against the will or interest of the victim, a case cannot succeed because the will of the parents is substituted for the will of the child.

Arguing That Parents Did Not Consent

What if the parent was coerced to send their child to school, or to the homework?

In most states, there are laws covering the attendance of children at school.

Absent an exclusion or a valid reason to opt out (like homeschool), a parent could face criminal prosecution if he/she does not send a child to school.

Parents are under the threat of fines and jail time.

After all, a parent who goes to jail might lose his job, his driver’s license, or maybe even custody of his children.

A person cannot consent at the business end of a weapon.

State Laws Do Not Compel Homework, Just Attendance

Another fun wrinkle in this argument, especially as we get down into whether parents have consented or can consent to homework, is whether the applicable laws have any impact on homework.

But are there any laws that require children to complete the homework.

I mean, doing homework is important to getting a good grade.

But aside from showing up at school (and not hurting or disrupting others), can schools actually make children do homework?

But they can’t physically punish a child (like hitting him, in most cases), or prevent him from eating or drinking while at school.

And once the child is at home with his homework, he is subject to the will of his parents or legal guardians.

Homework – Top 3 Pros and Cons

Pro/Con Arguments | Discussion Questions | Take Action | Sources | More Debates

From dioramas to book reports, from algebraic word problems to research projects, whether students should be given homework, as well as the type and amount of homework, has been debated for over a century. [ 1 ]

While we are unsure who invented homework, we do know that the word “homework” dates back to ancient Rome. Pliny the Younger asked his followers to practice their speeches at home. Memorization exercises as homework continued through the Middle Ages and Enlightenment by monks and other scholars. [ 45 ]

In the 19th century, German students of the Volksschulen or “People’s Schools” were given assignments to complete outside of the school day. This concept of homework quickly spread across Europe and was brought to the United States by Horace Mann , who encountered the idea in Prussia. [ 45 ]

In the early 1900s, progressive education theorists, championed by the magazine Ladies’ Home Journal , decried homework’s negative impact on children’s physical and mental health, leading California to ban homework for students under 15 from 1901 until 1917. In the 1930s, homework was portrayed as child labor, which was newly illegal, but the prevailing argument was that kids needed time to do household chores. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 45 ] [ 46 ]

Public opinion swayed again in favor of homework in the 1950s due to concerns about keeping up with the Soviet Union’s technological advances during the Cold War . And, in 1986, the US government included homework as an educational quality boosting tool. [ 3 ] [ 45 ]

A 2014 study found kindergarteners to fifth graders averaged 2.9 hours of homework per week, sixth to eighth graders 3.2 hours per teacher, and ninth to twelfth graders 3.5 hours per teacher. A 2014-2019 study found that teens spent about an hour a day on homework. [ 4 ] [ 44 ]

Beginning in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic complicated the very idea of homework as students were schooling remotely and many were doing all school work from home. Washington Post journalist Valerie Strauss asked, “Does homework work when kids are learning all day at home?” While students were mostly back in school buildings in fall 2021, the question remains of how effective homework is as an educational tool. [ 47 ]

Is Homework Beneficial?

Pro 1 Homework improves student achievement. Studies have shown that homework improved student achievement in terms of improved grades, test results, and the likelihood to attend college. Research published in the High School Journal indicated that students who spent between 31 and 90 minutes each day on homework “scored about 40 points higher on the SAT-Mathematics subtest than their peers, who reported spending no time on homework each day, on average.” [ 6 ] Students in classes that were assigned homework outperformed 69% of students who didn’t have homework on both standardized tests and grades. A majority of studies on homework’s impact – 64% in one meta-study and 72% in another – showed that take-home assignments were effective at improving academic achievement. [ 7 ] [ 8 ] Research by the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) concluded that increased homework led to better GPAs and higher probability of college attendance for high school boys. In fact, boys who attended college did more than three hours of additional homework per week in high school. [ 10 ] Read More

Pro 2 Homework helps to reinforce classroom learning, while developing good study habits and life skills. Students typically retain only 50% of the information teachers provide in class, and they need to apply that information in order to truly learn it. Abby Freireich and Brian Platzer, co-founders of Teachers Who Tutor NYC, explained, “at-home assignments help students learn the material taught in class. Students require independent practice to internalize new concepts… [And] these assignments can provide valuable data for teachers about how well students understand the curriculum.” [ 11 ] [ 49 ] Elementary school students who were taught “strategies to organize and complete homework,” such as prioritizing homework activities, collecting study materials, note-taking, and following directions, showed increased grades and more positive comments on report cards. [ 17 ] Research by the City University of New York noted that “students who engage in self-regulatory processes while completing homework,” such as goal-setting, time management, and remaining focused, “are generally more motivated and are higher achievers than those who do not use these processes.” [ 18 ] Homework also helps students develop key skills that they’ll use throughout their lives: accountability, autonomy, discipline, time management, self-direction, critical thinking, and independent problem-solving. Freireich and Platzer noted that “homework helps students acquire the skills needed to plan, organize, and complete their work.” [ 12 ] [ 13 ] [ 14 ] [ 15 ] [ 49 ] Read More

Pro 3 Homework allows parents to be involved with children’s learning. Thanks to take-home assignments, parents are able to track what their children are learning at school as well as their academic strengths and weaknesses. [ 12 ] Data from a nationwide sample of elementary school students show that parental involvement in homework can improve class performance, especially among economically disadvantaged African-American and Hispanic students. [ 20 ] Research from Johns Hopkins University found that an interactive homework process known as TIPS (Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork) improves student achievement: “Students in the TIPS group earned significantly higher report card grades after 18 weeks (1 TIPS assignment per week) than did non-TIPS students.” [ 21 ] Homework can also help clue parents in to the existence of any learning disabilities their children may have, allowing them to get help and adjust learning strategies as needed. Duke University Professor Harris Cooper noted, “Two parents once told me they refused to believe their child had a learning disability until homework revealed it to them.” [ 12 ] Read More

Con 1 Too much homework can be harmful. A poll of California high school students found that 59% thought they had too much homework. 82% of respondents said that they were “often or always stressed by schoolwork.” High-achieving high school students said too much homework leads to sleep deprivation and other health problems such as headaches, exhaustion, weight loss, and stomach problems. [ 24 ] [ 28 ] [ 29 ] Alfie Kohn, an education and parenting expert, said, “Kids should have a chance to just be kids… it’s absurd to insist that children must be engaged in constructive activities right up until their heads hit the pillow.” [ 27 ] Emmy Kang, a mental health counselor, explained, “More than half of students say that homework is their primary source of stress, and we know what stress can do on our bodies.” [ 48 ] Excessive homework can also lead to cheating: 90% of middle school students and 67% of high school students admit to copying someone else’s homework, and 43% of college students engaged in “unauthorized collaboration” on out-of-class assignments. Even parents take shortcuts on homework: 43% of those surveyed admitted to having completed a child’s assignment for them. [ 30 ] [ 31 ] [ 32 ] Read More

Con 2 Homework exacerbates the digital divide or homework gap. Kiara Taylor, financial expert, defined the digital divide as “the gap between demographics and regions that have access to modern information and communications technology and those that don’t. Though the term now encompasses the technical and financial ability to utilize available technology—along with access (or a lack of access) to the Internet—the gap it refers to is constantly shifting with the development of technology.” For students, this is often called the homework gap. [ 50 ] [ 51 ] 30% (about 15 to 16 million) public school students either did not have an adequate internet connection or an appropriate device, or both, for distance learning. Completing homework for these students is more complicated (having to find a safe place with an internet connection, or borrowing a laptop, for example) or impossible. [ 51 ] A Hispanic Heritage Foundation study found that 96.5% of students across the country needed to use the internet for homework, and nearly half reported they were sometimes unable to complete their homework due to lack of access to the internet or a computer, which often resulted in lower grades. [ 37 ] [ 38 ] One study concluded that homework increases social inequality because it “potentially serves as a mechanism to further advantage those students who already experience some privilege in the school system while further disadvantaging those who may already be in a marginalized position.” [ 39 ] Read More

Con 3 Homework does not help younger students, and may not help high school students. We’ve known for a while that homework does not help elementary students. A 2006 study found that “homework had no association with achievement gains” when measured by standardized tests results or grades. [ 7 ] Fourth grade students who did no homework got roughly the same score on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math exam as those who did 30 minutes of homework a night. Students who did 45 minutes or more of homework a night actually did worse. [ 41 ] Temple University professor Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek said that homework is not the most effective tool for young learners to apply new information: “They’re learning way more important skills when they’re not doing their homework.” [ 42 ] In fact, homework may not be helpful at the high school level either. Alfie Kohn, author of The Homework Myth, stated, “I interviewed high school teachers who completely stopped giving homework and there was no downside, it was all upside.” He explains, “just because the same kids who get more homework do a little better on tests, doesn’t mean the homework made that happen.” [ 52 ] Read More

Discussion Questions

1. Is homework beneficial? Consider the study data, your personal experience, and other types of information. Explain your answer(s).

2. If homework were banned, what other educational strategies would help students learn classroom material? Explain your answer(s).

3. How has homework been helpful to you personally? How has homework been unhelpful to you personally? Make carefully considered lists for both sides.

Take Action

1. Examine an argument in favor of quality homework assignments from Janine Bempechat.

2. Explore Oxford Learning’s infographic on the effects of homework on students.

3. Consider Joseph Lathan’s argument that homework promotes inequality .

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives .

More School Debate Topics

Should K-12 Students Dissect Animals in Science Classrooms? – Proponents say dissecting real animals is a better learning experience. Opponents say the practice is bad for the environment.

Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms? – Proponents say uniforms may increase student safety. Opponents say uniforms restrict expression.

Should Corporal Punishment Be Used in K-12 Schools? – Proponents say corporal punishment is an appropriate discipline. Opponents say it inflicts long-lasting physical and mental harm on students.

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

Cite This Page

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Why I Think All Schools Should Abolish Homework

H ow long is your child’s workweek? Thirty hours? Forty? Would it surprise you to learn that some elementary school kids have workweeks comparable to adults’ schedules? For most children, mandatory homework assignments push their workweek far beyond the school day and deep into what any other laborers would consider overtime. Even without sports or music or other school-sponsored extracurriculars, the daily homework slog keeps many students on the clock as long as lawyers, teachers, medical residents, truck drivers and other overworked adults. Is it any wonder that,deprived of the labor protections that we provide adults, our kids are suffering an epidemic of disengagement, anxiety and depression ?

With my youngest child just months away from finishing high school, I’m remembering all the needless misery and missed opportunities all three of my kids suffered because of their endless assignments. When my daughters were in middle school, I would urge them into bed before midnight and then find them clandestinely studying under the covers with a flashlight. We cut back on their activities but still found ourselves stuck in a system on overdrive, returning home from hectic days at 6 p.m. only to face hours more of homework. Now, even as a senior with a moderate course load, my son, Zak, has spent many weekends studying, finding little time for the exercise and fresh air essential to his well-being. Week after week, and without any extracurriculars, Zak logs a lot more than the 40 hours adults traditionally work each week — and with no recognition from his “bosses” that it’s too much. I can’t count the number of shared evenings, weekend outings and dinners that our family has missed and will never get back.

How much after-school time should our schools really own?

In the midst of the madness last fall, Zak said to me, “I feel like I’m working towards my death. The constant demands on my time since 5th grade are just going to continue through graduation, into college, and then into my job. It’s like I’m on an endless treadmill with no time for living.”

My spirit crumbled along with his.

Like Zak, many people are now questioning the point of putting so much demand on children and teens that they become thinly stretched and overworked. Studies have long shown that there is no academic benefit to high school homework that consumes more than a modest number of hours each week. In a study of high schoolers conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), researchers concluded that “after around four hours of homework per week, the additional time invested in homework has a negligible impact on performance.”

In elementary school, where we often assign overtime even to the youngest children, studies have shown there’s no academic benefit to any amount of homework at all.

Our unquestioned acceptance of homework also flies in the face of all we know about human health, brain function and learning. Brain scientists know that rest and exercise are essential to good health and real learning . Even top adult professionals in specialized fields take care to limit their work to concentrated periods of focus. A landmark study of how humans develop expertise found that elite musicians, scientists and athletes do their most productive work only about four hours per day .

Yet we continue to overwork our children, depriving them of the chance to cultivate health and learn deeply, burdening them with an imbalance of sedentary, academic tasks. American high school students , in fact, do more homework each week than their peers in the average country in the OECD, a 2014 report found.

It’s time for an uprising.

Already, small rebellions are starting. High schools in Ridgewood, N.J. , and Fairfax County, Va., among others, have banned homework over school breaks. The entire second grade at Taylor Elementary School in Arlington, Va., abolished homework this academic year. Burton Valley Elementary School in Lafayette, Calif., has eliminated homework in grades K through 4. Henry West Laboratory School , a public K-8 school in Coral Gables, Fla., eliminated mandatory, graded homework for optional assignments. One Lexington, Mass., elementary school is piloting a homework-free year, replacing it with reading for pleasure.

More from TIME

Across the Atlantic, students in Spain launched a national strike against excessive assignments in November. And a second-grade teacher in Texas, made headlines this fall when she quit sending home extra work , instead urging families to “spend your evenings doing things that are proven to correlate with student success. Eat dinner as a family, read together, play outside and get your child to bed early.”

It is time that we call loudly for a clear and simple change: a workweek limit for children, counting time on the clock before and after the final bell. Why should schools extend their authority far beyond the boundaries of campus, dictating activities in our homes in the hours that belong to families? An all-out ban on after-school assignments would be optimal. Short of that, we can at least sensibly agree on a cap limiting kids to a 40-hour workweek — and fewer hours for younger children.

Resistance even to this reasonable limit will be rife. Mike Miller, an English teacher at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Va., found this out firsthand when he spearheaded a homework committee to rethink the usual approach. He had read the education research and found a forgotten policy on the county books limiting homework to two hours a night, total, including all classes. “I thought it would be a slam dunk” to put the two-hour cap firmly in place, Miller said.

But immediately, people started balking. “There was a lot of fear in the community,” Miller said. “It’s like jumping off a high dive with your kids’ future. If we reduce homework to two hours or less, is my kid really going to be okay?” In the end, the committee only agreed to a homework ban over school breaks.

Miller’s response is a great model for us all. He decided to limit assignments in his own class to 20 minutes a night (the most allowed for a student with six classes to hit the two-hour max). His students didn’t suddenly fail. Their test scores remained stable. And they started using their more breathable schedule to do more creative, thoughtful work.

That’s the way we will get to a sane work schedule for kids: by simultaneously pursuing changes big and small. Even as we collaboratively press for policy changes at the district or individual school level, all teachers can act now, as individuals, to ease the strain on overworked kids.

As parents and students, we can also organize to make homework the exception rather than the rule. We can insist that every family, teacher and student be allowed to opt out of assignments without penalty to make room for important activities, and we can seek changes that shift practice exercises and assignments into the actual school day.

We’ll know our work is done only when Zak and every other child can clock out, eat dinner, sleep well and stay healthy — the very things needed to engage and learn deeply. That’s the basic standard the law applies to working adults. Let’s do the same for our kids.

Vicki Abeles is the author of the bestseller Beyond Measure: Rescuing an Overscheduled, Overtested, Underestimated Generation, and director and producer of the documentaries “ Race to Nowhere ” and “ Beyond Measure. ”

More Must-Reads from TIME

• Why Biden Dropped Out 
• Ukraine’s Plan to Survive Trump
• The Rise of a New Kind of Parenting Guru
• The Chaos and Commotion of the RNC in Photos
• Why We All Have a Stake in  Twisters’ Success
• 8 Eating Habits That Actually Improve Your Sleep
• Welcome to the Noah Lyles Olympics
• Get Our Paris Olympics Newsletter in Your Inbox

Contact us at [email protected]

Is Homework Illegal?

If you are a student or a parent, you might be wondering about the answer to the question, is homework illegal? Whether you are in the favor of homework or against it, you can use many arguments to make your case.

There are many arguments about the question of whether homework is illegal. They include that it is a source of stress and anxiety for many students and takes away from time that could be used for extracurricular activities or part-time jobs.

Need homework or assignment help? Hire Codeavail experts now!

Arguments that homework is a type of child labor

Table of Contents

If you are a parent or teacher, you have probably heard a lot about the homework craze, but it is worth asking: is it worth it? 

While doing your homework does take time and effort, it can be a lot of fun. Some argue that a homework craze is dehumanizing and violates the student’s right to liberty. 

Only some kids want to do their homework, and there are always the slackers.

The debates have raged for the last couple of decades and are still being contested. It is difficult to know whether homework is a form of dehumanization, but a student’s right to free education is a matter of common sense.  

Luckily, there are laws to protect kids from the evils of the school system, and a parent’s well-being is also protected. 

Arguments against homework

A debate over the importance of homework has been going on for many years. Many people believe it is essential, but others think it is useless.

Homework helps students prepare for their assignments and learn essential life skills. They can also improve their writing and research skills and develop a work ethic.  

During their school years, students must keep busy to stay caught up in their studies.

Students often come home from school tired and overwhelmed. That means they can’t relax, do their favorite activities, or spend time with their families. It can cause a lot of stress and mental health issues.

Studies have shown that too much homework can negatively impact students’ academic performance. 

Often, students need more time to complete their homework and other assignments. This can lead to academic stress and mental health problems.

Another problem with homework is that it takes time away from the family. Many parents feel that it takes away their quality time with their kids.

Arguments that it’s a waste of time

The homework debate has raged for decades. Some parents believe that students need more homework, while others believe homework takes away time from family and other activities.  

However, there are many educators that are against homework.

Educators have long argued that homework has benefits and disadvantages. For example, too much homework activities are bad for student health and can hinder students from participating in sports or other social activities.

Many studies have been conducted, and most found that homework does not improve student grades.  

Even worse, too much homework adversely affects a child’s health and mental well-being.

To combat the adverse effects of too much homework, many educators argue that the solution is to cut the amount of homework.  

If homework were eliminated, students would be left with less time for school, and teachers would need more time to cover critical material. This is a complex task, however. 

It’s a source of stress and anxiety for many students.

There is a growing concern that homework is a significant source of stress and anxiety for many students. 

This problem is especially prevalent among economically disadvantaged youth.

According to researchers, students subjected to excessive homework can suffer physical ailments such as headaches and stomach problems. 

They also need more time to sleep, family time, and social time. This causes them to become overwhelmed and unable to meet their basic needs.

Despite the many benefits of homework, there is a growing concern that it is a major source of stress and anxiety. 

A recent study conducted by Stanford University found that students who spend too much time doing their homework experience stress and physical health problems.

It takes away time from extracurricular activities and part-time jobs.

The amount of homework that students are expected to do can be overwhelming. It takes up a lot of time, and many students find it challenging to manage their time effectively. 

The result is that they spend less time with their friends and family. This can cause stress and anxiety in the home and school, leading to several problems.

Not only does excessive homework take away time from family and friends, but it can also take away time from other activities. 

The best way to combat the effects of time shortages is to prioritize assignments according to difficulty. This will allow students to learn more while getting more done.

Not only does excessive homework negatively affect a student’s mental and physical health, but it can also take away from the other essential aspects of life. 

For example, it may interfere with learning how to cook and eat healthily. It can also keep kids from playing outside and developing creative and social skills, which can improve their lives.

Arguments that homework isn’t legal in the U.S.

Its benefits and disadvantages are controversial. Some parents are convinced that their children are being overworked, while others believe that the time spent on schoolwork is valuable.

One benefit of homework is that it can allow students and their parents to monitor their child’s progress. 

However, homework only works well for some students, and it’s difficult to determine whether or not it’s effective.

Some argue that homework is unnecessary, while others feel that it’s the best thing that’s ever happened to a student. 

Homework can interfere with a family’s social life, and it’s a drain on both teachers and parents.

Some educators claim that students are losing out on quality family time and that homework should be limited. Other studies show that homework has little to do with academic success.

The optimal amount of time students should spend on homework per day

If you are a teacher, it’s essential to determine the optimal amount of time students spend on homework daily. 

There are several factors to consider, including age, gender, and subject. 

However, there is one general rule of thumb that you should follow.

Middle school students allocate about 45 minutes a night to homework. High schoolers should complete about two hours a night.

Homework is an excellent way for kids to learn valuable study skills. It also allows them to discover their favorite subjects. Aside from teaching them time management and studying skills, it helps them develop discipline.

Research suggests that children who receive too much homework can be overburdened with stress. 

It can lead to sleep deprivation, headaches, and exhaustion. 

The link between homework and achievement borders on triviality

There’s been a lot of hype around homework for the past couple of decades. Despite the apparent benefits of an unrestricted education, some parents need more time to get comfortable with it. 

 Luckily, with proper planning you can ensure that students are engaged happily in their work. Also, the task of maintaining discipline while doing homework is not as hard as it seems.

Thankfully, there’s plenty of research to be found on the internet. And a little forethought goes a long way, especially in a high-stress environment. In other words, proper homework can lead to better grades.

The best way to do it is to start with a good homework plan and stick with it. Most importantly, kids will learn to self-manage their time and sanity. 

Moreover, it’s a win-win: parents get to see their kids’ best work, and kids are more likely to put their best foot forward and make it on time.

The link between homework and sleep deprivation 

The link between homework and sleep deprivation is a very real one. Although sleep is essential to the body and can be affected by stress, chronic lack of sleep can also impair concentration, memory, and problem-solving.

Many students complain about not getting enough sleep. According to the National Sleep Foundation, an average school night requires between five and seven hours. However, this number can vary for a variety of reasons.

Teens can get into a cycle of late-night studying that can affect their sleep. This can lead to physical symptoms and anxiety. In some cases, a student may even become depressed.

Research has shown that adolescents spend about 60 hours a week on schoolwork. This is a huge number and can result in a lack of sleep.

The Bottom Line

 In conclusion, it seems that homework is technically illegal in most cases. However, there are a few exceptions that seem to be tolerated more than others. ( squibler.io ) It is important to remember that homework should not replace actual school work, and should only be used as a supplement.

Related Posts

How to Hire someone to do my Statistics Homework for Me?

Students ask to do my statistics homework for me. Although there are many online tutors or statistics homework service providing websites available to help you…

How to Get Good Grades in Exams Tips by Experts

Here in this blog, Codeavail professional experts will help you to understand how to get good grades in Exams. Notice that not all the material…

• Subscribe to BBC Science Focus Magazine
• Previous Issues
• Future tech
• Everyday science
• Planet Earth
• Newsletters

© Getty Images

Should homework be banned?

Social media has sparked into life about whether children should be given homework - should students be freed from this daily chore? Dr Gerald Letendre, a professor of education at Pennsylvania State University, investigates.

We’ve all done it: pretended to leave an essay at home, or stayed up until 2am to finish a piece of coursework we’ve been ignoring for weeks. Homework, for some people, is seen as a chore that’s ‘wrecking kids’ or ‘killing parents’, while others think it is an essential part of a well-rounded education. The problem is far from new: public debates about homework have been raging since at least the early-1900s, and recently spilled over into a Twitter feud between Gary Lineker and Piers Morgan.

Ironically, the conversation surrounding homework often ignores the scientific ‘homework’ that researchers have carried out. Many detailed studies have been conducted, and can guide parents, teachers and administrators to make sensible decisions about how much work should be completed by students outside of the classroom.

So why does homework stir up such strong emotions? One reason is that, by its very nature, it is an intrusion of schoolwork into family life. I carried out a study in 2005, and found that the amount of time that children and adolescents spend in school, from nursery right up to the end of compulsory education, has greatly increased over the last century . This means that more of a child’s time is taken up with education, so family time is reduced. This increases pressure on the boundary between the family and the school.

Plus, the amount of homework that students receive appears to be increasing, especially in the early years when parents are keen for their children to play with friends and spend time with the family.

Finally, success in school has become increasingly important to success in life. Parents can use homework to promote, or exercise control over, their child’s academic trajectory, and hopefully ensure their future educational success. But this often leaves parents conflicted – they want their children to be successful in school, but they don’t want them to be stressed or upset because of an unmanageable workload.

However, the issue isn’t simply down to the opinions of parents, children and their teachers – governments also like to get involved. In the autumn of 2012, French president François Hollande hit world headlines after making a comment about banning homework, ostensibly because it promoted inequality. The Chinese government has also toyed with a ban, because of concerns about excessive academic pressure being put on children.

The problem is, some politicians and national administrators regard regulatory policy in education as a solution for a wide array of social, economic and political issues, perhaps without considering the consequences for students and parents.

Does homework work?

Homework seems to generally have a positive effect for high school students, according to an extensive range of empirical literature. For example, Duke University’s Prof Harris Cooper carried out a meta-analysis using data from US schools, covering a period from 1987 to 2003. He found that homework offered a general beneficial impact on test scores and improvements in attitude, with a greater effect seen in older students. But dig deeper into the issue and a complex set of factors quickly emerges, related to how much homework students do, and exactly how they feel about it.

In 2009, Prof Ulrich Trautwein and his team at the University of Tübingen found that in order to establish whether homework is having any effect, researchers must take into account the differences both between and within classes . For example, a teacher may assign a good deal of homework to a lower-level class, producing an association between more homework and lower levels of achievement. Yet, within the same class, individual students may vary significantly in how much homework improves their baseline performance. Plus, there is the fact that some students are simply more efficient at completing their homework than others, and it becomes quite difficult to pinpoint just what type of homework, and how much of it, will affect overall academic performance.

Over the last century, the amount of time that children and adolescents spend in school has greatly increased

Gender is also a major factor. For example, a study of US high school students carried out by Prof Gary Natriello in the 1980s revealed that girls devote more time to homework than boys, while a follow-up study found that US girls tend to spend more time on mathematics homework than boys. Another study, this time of African-American students in the US, found that eighth grade (ages 13-14) girls were more likely to successfully manage both their tasks and emotions around schoolwork, and were more likely to finish homework.

So why do girls seem to respond more positively to homework? One possible answer proposed by Eunsook Hong of the University of Nevada in 2011 is that teachers tend to rate girls’ habits and attitudes towards work more favourably than boys’. This perception could potentially set up a positive feedback loop between teacher expectations and the children’s capacity for academic work based on gender, resulting in girls outperforming boys. All of this makes it particularly difficult to determine the extent to which homework is helping, though it is clear that simply increasing the time spent on assignments does not directly correspond to a universal increase in learning.

Can homework cause damage?

The lack of empirical data supporting homework in the early years of education, along with an emerging trend to assign more work to this age range, appears to be fuelling parental concerns about potential negative effects. But, aside from anecdotes of increased tension in the household, is there any evidence of this? Can doing too much homework actually damage children?

Evidence suggests extreme amounts of homework can indeed have serious effects on students’ health and well-being. A Chinese study carried out in 2010 found a link between excessive homework and sleep disruption: children who had less homework had better routines and more stable sleep schedules. A Canadian study carried out in 2015 by Isabelle Michaud found that high levels of homework were associated with a greater risk of obesity among boys, if they were already feeling stressed about school in general.

For useful revision guides and video clips to assist with learning, visit BBC Bitesize . This is a free online study resource for UK students from early years up to GCSEs and Scottish Highers.

It is also worth noting that too much homework can create negative effects that may undermine any positives. These negative consequences may not only affect the child, but also could also pile on the stress for the whole family, according to a recent study by Robert Pressman of the New England Centre for Pediatric Psychology. Parents were particularly affected when their perception of their own capacity to assist their children decreased.

What then, is the tipping point, and when does homework simply become too much for parents and children? Guidelines typically suggest that children in the first grade (six years old) should have no more that 10 minutes per night, and that this amount should increase by 10 minutes per school year. However, cultural norms may greatly affect what constitutes too much.

A study of children aged between 8 and 10 in Quebec defined high levels of homework as more than 30 minutes a night, but a study in China of children aged 5 to 11 deemed that two or more hours per night was excessive. It is therefore difficult to create a clear standard for what constitutes as too much homework, because cultural differences, school-related stress, and negative emotions within the family all appear to interact with how homework affects children.

Should we stop setting homework?

In my opinion, even though there are potential risks of negative effects, homework should not be banned. Small amounts, assigned with specific learning goals in mind and with proper parental support, can help to improve students’ performance. While some studies have generally found little evidence that homework has a positive effect on young children overall, a 2008 study by Norwegian researcher Marte Rønning found that even some very young children do receive some benefit. So simply banning homework would mean that any particularly gifted or motivated pupils would not be able to benefit from increased study. However, at the earliest ages, very little homework should be assigned. The decisions about how much and what type are best left to teachers and parents.

As a parent, it is important to clarify what goals your child’s teacher has for homework assignments. Teachers can assign work for different reasons – as an academic drill to foster better study habits, and unfortunately, as a punishment. The goals for each assignment should be made clear, and should encourage positive engagement with academic routines.

Parents should inform the teachers of how long the homework is taking, as teachers often incorrectly estimate the amount of time needed to complete an assignment, and how it is affecting household routines. For young children, positive teacher support and feedback is critical in establishing a student’s positive perception of homework and other academic routines. Teachers and parents need to be vigilant and ensure that homework routines do not start to generate patterns of negative interaction that erode students’ motivation.

Likewise, any positive effects of homework are dependent on several complex interactive factors, including the child’s personal motivation, the type of assignment, parental support and teacher goals. Creating an overarching policy to address every single situation is not realistic, and so homework policies tend to be fixated on the time the homework takes to complete. But rather than focusing on this, everyone would be better off if schools worked on fostering stronger communication between parents, teachers and students, allowing them to respond more sensitively to the child’s emotional and academic needs.

• Five brilliant science books for kids
• Will e-learning replace teachers?

Follow Science Focus on Twitter , Facebook , Instagram and Flipboard

Share this article

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy policy
• Cookies policy
• Code of conduct
• Magazine subscriptions
• Manage preferences

• Close Menu Search
• Book Reviews
• Music Reviews
• Co-Curricular Clubs
• Campus Ministry

• The Disproportionate Rates of Homelessness Among Minorities
• Anti-Racism
• Artistic Expressions of Social Justice and Racial Equality

Why (Most) Homework Should Be Banned

The 30-minute rule is there to justify giving a lot of homework

Anthony Malcolm ‘23 , Staff Writer December 8, 2022

There are plenty of reasons why (most) homework should be banned. I’ll start out with some general facts and look at homework in general, then go into some detail about our school.

Stanford conducted a study surveying over 4,300 students in 10 high performing high schools in California. More than 70% of the students said they were “often or always stressed over schoolwork,” with 56% claiming that homework was the main stressor. But here’s the kicker: Less than 1% said homework was not a stressor. 

The researchers then asked the students if they had exhibited symptoms of stress like headaches, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, weight loss, and stomach problems. More than 80% of the students reported at least one stress related symptom recently and 44% claimed they experienced 3 or more symptoms. The study also found that students who spend a lot of time working on homework experience more stress, physical health problems, and a lack of balance in their lives. The study claimed that any more than 2 hours of homework per night was counterproductive, and that the students who spent too much time on homework were more likely to not participate in activities and hobbies, and stop seeing friends and family. 

A smaller NYU study claimed that students at elite high schools are susceptible to chronic stress, emotional exhaustion, and alcohol and drug abuse. About half of the students said they received at least 3 hours of homework a night on top of being pressured to take college level classes and participate in extracurricular activities (sound familiar?). The study claims that many of the students felt they were being worked as hard as adults, and they said that their workload seemed inappropriate for their development level. The study reported that the students felt that they had little time for relaxing and hobbies. More than two thirds of students said they used alcohol or drugs, primarily marijuana, to cope with the stress.

Back to the Stanford study for a second; many of the students claimed that the homework was “pointless” or “mindless.” The study argues that homework should have a purpose and benefit, which should be to cultivate learning. One of the main reasons is that school feels like a full-time job at this point. We, as in BC High students, are in school from 8:25 till 2:40; most of us have some sort of extracurricular activity on top of that, and most of us have significant commutes, which means we are getting home much later. On top of a rigorous day at school, an afterschool activity, and a commute, we have to deal with a varying amount of homework every night. Sometimes it is 2 hours, sometimes 3, sometimes even 4. I will give you an example of a day in my life last year to provide a specific example, because we are not a one size fits all community. 

I live in Middleboro and Bridgewater, so I ride the train to school which takes 50 minutes to an hour. A spring day last year would start by waking up at 5:30 and then leaving my house to get to the train at 6:30-6:35, getting on the train at 6:50, getting off the train at 7:50, and arriving at the school before classes started at 8:20. I would go through the school day and stay after for track practice. After track, I would most likely get on the train at 5:00 and get home at 6:15. I would eat dinner, shower, and then start my homework around 7:30-8, and usually I would finish somewhere between 10:30ish to 11:30ish. Can you see how that can be misconstrued as a full-time job?

Some of you might be thinking (especially any teacher reading this), why didn’t you use the 30-minute rule? Well, because most (and I mean MOST) of the time the 30-minute rule is an ineffective rule that justifies giving students a lot of homework. If you use the 30-minute rule and don’t finish a homework assignment, it still has to be completed sometime, and you’ll be behind in class. It is only effective when a teacher plans for the 30-minute rule and tells you to stop at 30 minutes to get an idea of how long an assignment takes their students. The 30-minute rule is there to justify giving a lot of homework because if you say in class that the homework took a long time, you will probably be told about the 30-minute rule. But if you used the 30-minute rule, you would have an unfinished homework assignment which means, depending on the class, you would be lost and behind, and you would still have to do it at some point. If you should have to justify giving a lot of homework, then it is probably too much. 

Parker, Clifton B. “Stanford Research Shows Pitfalls of Homework.” Stanford University , 10 Mar. 2014, http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/march/too-much-homework-031014.html . 

Communications, NYU Web. NYU Study Examines Top High School Students’ Stress and Coping Mechanisms . http://www.nyu.edu/content/nyu/en/about/news-publications/news/2015/august/nyu

-study-examines-top-high-school-students-stress-and-coping-mechanisms . 

Sex Scene Discourse

Why Can’t You Get into College?

Behind the Commencement Speaker Selection Process

Be Worried?

Is the House System worth it?

Why JUG will Never Change

Should Parents Check Our Phones?

Hoodies in BC High?

Toll Booths: A Rebuttal

Why Do We Chase Success?

The Eyes and Ears of BC High.

Comments (0)

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• The Highlight

Nobody knows what the point of homework is

The homework wars are back.

by Jacob Sweet

As the Covid-19 pandemic began and students logged into their remote classrooms, all work, in effect, became homework. But whether or not students could complete it at home varied. For some, schoolwork became public-library work or McDonald’s-parking-lot work.

Luis Torres, the principal of PS 55, a predominantly low-income community elementary school in the south Bronx, told me that his school secured Chromebooks for students early in the pandemic only to learn that some lived in shelters that blocked wifi for security reasons. Others, who lived in housing projects with poor internet reception, did their schoolwork in laundromats.

According to a 2021 Pew survey , 25 percent of lower-income parents said their children, at some point, were unable to complete their schoolwork because they couldn’t access a computer at home; that number for upper-income parents was 2 percent.

The issues with remote learning in March 2020 were new. But they highlighted a divide that had been there all along in another form: homework. And even long after schools have resumed in-person classes, the pandemic’s effects on homework have lingered.

Over the past three years, in response to concerns about equity, schools across the country, including in Sacramento, Los Angeles , San Diego , and Clark County, Nevada , made permanent changes to their homework policies that restricted how much homework could be given and how it could be graded after in-person learning resumed.

Three years into the pandemic, as districts and teachers reckon with Covid-era overhauls of teaching and learning, schools are still reconsidering the purpose and place of homework. Whether relaxing homework expectations helps level the playing field between students or harms them by decreasing rigor is a divisive issue without conclusive evidence on either side, echoing other debates in education like the elimination of standardized test scores from some colleges’ admissions processes.

I first began to wonder if the homework abolition movement made sense after speaking with teachers in some Massachusetts public schools, who argued that rather than help disadvantaged kids, stringent homework restrictions communicated an attitude of low expectations. One, an English teacher, said she felt the school had “just given up” on trying to get the students to do work; another argued that restrictions that prohibit teachers from assigning take-home work that doesn’t begin in class made it difficult to get through the foreign-language curriculum. Teachers in other districts have raised formal concerns about homework abolition’s ability to close gaps among students rather than widening them.

Many education experts share this view. Harris Cooper, a professor emeritus of psychology at Duke who has studied homework efficacy, likened homework abolition to “playing to the lowest common denominator.”

But as I learned after talking to a variety of stakeholders — from homework researchers to policymakers to parents of schoolchildren — whether to abolish homework probably isn’t the right question. More important is what kind of work students are sent home with and where they can complete it. Chances are, if schools think more deeply about giving constructive work, time spent on homework will come down regardless.

There’s no consensus on whether homework works

The rise of the no-homework movement during the Covid-19 pandemic tapped into long-running disagreements over homework’s impact on students. The purpose and effectiveness of homework have been disputed for well over a century. In 1901, for instance, California banned homework for students up to age 15, and limited it for older students, over concerns that it endangered children’s mental and physical health. The newest iteration of the anti-homework argument contends that the current practice punishes students who lack support and rewards those with more resources, reinforcing the “myth of meritocracy.”

But there is still no research consensus on homework’s effectiveness; no one can seem to agree on what the right metrics are. Much of the debate relies on anecdotes, intuition, or speculation.

Researchers disagree even on how much research exists on the value of homework. Kathleen Budge, the co-author of Turning High-Poverty Schools Into High-Performing Schools and a professor at Boise State, told me that homework “has been greatly researched.” Denise Pope, a Stanford lecturer and leader of the education nonprofit Challenge Success, said, “It’s not a highly researched area because of some of the methodological problems.”

Experts who are more sympathetic to take-home assignments generally support the “10-minute rule,” a framework that estimates the ideal amount of homework on any given night by multiplying the student’s grade by 10 minutes. (A ninth grader, for example, would have about 90 minutes of work a night.) Homework proponents argue that while it is difficult to design randomized control studies to test homework’s effectiveness, the vast majority of existing studies show a strong positive correlation between homework and high academic achievement for middle and high school students. Prominent critics of homework argue that these correlational studies are unreliable and point to studies that suggest a neutral or negative effect on student performance. Both agree there is little to no evidence for homework’s effectiveness at an elementary school level, though proponents often argue that it builds constructive habits for the future.

For anyone who remembers homework assignments from both good and bad teachers, this fundamental disagreement might not be surprising. Some homework is pointless and frustrating to complete. Every week during my senior year of high school, I had to analyze a poem for English and decorate it with images found on Google; my most distinct memory from that class is receiving a demoralizing 25-point deduction because I failed to present my analysis on a poster board. Other assignments really do help students learn: After making an adapted version of Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book for a ninth grade history project, I was inspired to check out from the library and read a biography of the Chinese ruler.

For homework opponents, the first example is more likely to resonate. “We’re all familiar with the negative effects of homework: stress, exhaustion, family conflict, less time for other activities, diminished interest in learning,” Alfie Kohn, author of The Homework Myth, which challenges common justifications for homework, told me in an email. “And these effects may be most pronounced among low-income students.” Kohn believes that schools should make permanent any moratoria implemented during the pandemic, arguing that there are no positives at all to outweigh homework’s downsides. Recent studies , he argues , show the benefits may not even materialize during high school.

In the Marlborough Public Schools, a suburban district 45 minutes west of Boston, school policy committee chair Katherine Hennessy described getting kids to complete their homework during remote education as “a challenge, to say the least.” Teachers found that students who spent all day on their computers didn’t want to spend more time online when the day was over. So, for a few months, the school relaxed the usual practice and teachers slashed the quantity of nightly homework.

Online learning made the preexisting divides between students more apparent, she said. Many students, even during normal circumstances, lacked resources to keep them on track and focused on completing take-home assignments. Though Marlborough Schools is more affluent than PS 55, Hennessy said many students had parents whose work schedules left them unable to provide homework help in the evenings. The experience tracked with a common divide in the country between children of different socioeconomic backgrounds.

So in October 2021, months after the homework reduction began, the Marlborough committee made a change to the district’s policy. While teachers could still give homework, the assignments had to begin as classwork. And though teachers could acknowledge homework completion in a student’s participation grade, they couldn’t count homework as its own grading category. “Rigorous learning in the classroom does not mean that that classwork must be assigned every night,” the policy stated . “Extensions of class work is not to be used to teach new content or as a form of punishment.”

Canceling homework might not do anything for the achievement gap

The critiques of homework are valid as far as they go, but at a certain point, arguments against homework can defy the commonsense idea that to retain what they’re learning, students need to practice it.

“Doesn’t a kid become a better reader if he reads more? Doesn’t a kid learn his math facts better if he practices them?” said Cathy Vatterott, an education researcher and professor emeritus at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. After decades of research, she said it’s still hard to isolate the value of homework, but that doesn’t mean it should be abandoned.

Blanket vilification of homework can also conflate the unique challenges facing disadvantaged students as compared to affluent ones, which could have different solutions. “The kids in the low-income schools are being hurt because they’re being graded, unfairly, on time they just don’t have to do this stuff,” Pope told me. “And they’re still being held accountable for turning in assignments, whether they’re meaningful or not.” On the other side, “Palo Alto kids” — students in Silicon Valley’s stereotypically pressure-cooker public schools — “are just bombarded and overloaded and trying to stay above water.”

Merely getting rid of homework doesn’t solve either problem. The United States already has the second-highest disparity among OECD (the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) nations between time spent on homework by students of high and low socioeconomic status — a difference of more than three hours, said Janine Bempechat, clinical professor at Boston University and author of No More Mindless Homework .

When she interviewed teachers in Boston-area schools that had cut homework before the pandemic, Bempechat told me, “What they saw immediately was parents who could afford it immediately enrolled their children in the Russian School of Mathematics,” a math-enrichment program whose tuition ranges from $140 to about $400 a month. Getting rid of homework “does nothing for equity; it increases the opportunity gap between wealthier and less wealthy families,” she said. “That solution troubles me because it’s no solution at all.”

A group of teachers at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia, made the same point after the school district proposed an overhaul of its homework policies, including removing penalties for missing homework deadlines, allowing unlimited retakes, and prohibiting grading of homework.

“Given the emphasis on equity in today’s education systems,” they wrote in a letter to the school board, “we believe that some of the proposed changes will actually have a detrimental impact towards achieving this goal. Families that have means could still provide challenging and engaging academic experiences for their children and will continue to do so, especially if their children are not experiencing expected rigor in the classroom.” At a school where more than a third of students are low-income, the teachers argued, the policies would prompt students “to expect the least of themselves in terms of effort, results, and responsibility.”

Not all homework is created equal

Despite their opposing sides in the homework wars, most of the researchers I spoke to made a lot of the same points. Both Bempechat and Pope were quick to bring up how parents and schools confuse rigor with workload, treating the volume of assignments as a proxy for quality of learning. Bempechat, who is known for defending homework, has written extensively about how plenty of it lacks clear purpose, requires the purchasing of unnecessary supplies, and takes longer than it needs to. Likewise, when Pope instructs graduate-level classes on curriculum, she asks her students to think about the larger purpose they’re trying to achieve with homework: If they can get the job done in the classroom, there’s no point in sending home more work.

At its best, pandemic-era teaching facilitated that last approach. Honolulu-based teacher Christina Torres Cawdery told me that, early in the pandemic, she often had a cohort of kids in her classroom for four hours straight, as her school tried to avoid too much commingling. She couldn’t lecture for four hours, so she gave the students plenty of time to complete independent and project-based work. At the end of most school days, she didn’t feel the need to send them home with more to do.

A similar limited-homework philosophy worked at a public middle school in Chelsea, Massachusetts. A couple of teachers there turned as much class as possible into an opportunity for small-group practice, allowing kids to work on problems that traditionally would be assigned for homework, Jessica Flick, a math coach who leads department meetings at the school, told me. It was inspired by a philosophy pioneered by Simon Fraser University professor Peter Liljedahl, whose influential book Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics reframes homework as “check-your-understanding questions” rather than as compulsory work. Last year, Flick found that the two eighth grade classes whose teachers adopted this strategy performed the best on state tests, and this year, she has encouraged other teachers to implement it.

Teachers know that plenty of homework is tedious and unproductive. Jeannemarie Dawson De Quiroz, who has taught for more than 20 years in low-income Boston and Los Angeles pilot and charter schools, says that in her first years on the job she frequently assigned “drill and kill” tasks and questions that she now feels unfairly stumped students. She said designing good homework wasn’t part of her teaching programs, nor was it meaningfully discussed in professional development. With more experience, she turned as much class time as she could into practice time and limited what she sent home.

“The thing about homework that’s sticky is that not all homework is created equal,” says Jill Harrison Berg, a former teacher and the author of Uprooting Instructional Inequity . “Some homework is a genuine waste of time and requires lots of resources for no good reason. And other homework is really useful.”

Cutting homework has to be part of a larger strategy

The takeaways are clear: Schools can make cuts to homework, but those cuts should be part of a strategy to improve the quality of education for all students. If the point of homework was to provide more practice, districts should think about how students can make it up during class — or offer time during or after school for students to seek help from teachers. If it was to move the curriculum along, it’s worth considering whether strategies like Liljedahl’s can get more done in less time.

Some of the best thinking around effective assignments comes from those most critical of the current practice. Denise Pope proposes that, before assigning homework, teachers should consider whether students understand the purpose of the work and whether they can do it without help. If teachers think it’s something that can’t be done in class, they should be mindful of how much time it should take and the feedback they should provide. It’s questions like these that De Quiroz considered before reducing the volume of work she sent home.

More than a year after the new homework policy began in Marlborough, Hennessy still hears from parents who incorrectly “think homework isn’t happening” despite repeated assurances that kids still can receive work. She thinks part of the reason is that education has changed over the years. “I think what we’re trying to do is establish that homework may be an element of educating students,” she told me. “But it may not be what parents think of as what they grew up with. ... It’s going to need to adapt, per the teaching and the curriculum, and how it’s being delivered in each classroom.”

For the policy to work, faculty, parents, and students will all have to buy into a shared vision of what school ought to look like. The district is working on it — in November, it hosted and uploaded to YouTube a round-table discussion on homework between district administrators — but considering the sustained confusion, the path ahead seems difficult.

When I asked Luis Torres about whether he thought homework serves a useful part in PS 55’s curriculum, he said yes, of course it was — despite the effort and money it takes to keep the school open after hours to help them do it. “The children need the opportunity to practice,” he said. “If you don’t give them opportunities to practice what they learn, they’re going to forget.” But Torres doesn’t care if the work is done at home. The school stays open until around 6 pm on weekdays, even during breaks. Tutors through New York City’s Department of Youth and Community Development programs help kids with work after school so they don’t need to take it with them.

As schools weigh the purpose of homework in an unequal world, it’s tempting to dispose of a practice that presents real, practical problems to students across the country. But getting rid of homework is unlikely to do much good on its own. Before cutting it, it’s worth thinking about what good assignments are meant to do in the first place. It’s crucial that students from all socioeconomic backgrounds tackle complex quantitative problems and hone their reading and writing skills. It’s less important that the work comes home with them.

Jacob Sweet is a freelance writer in Somerville, Massachusetts. He is a frequent contributor to the New Yorker, among other publications.

Most Popular

J.d. vance has made it impossible for trump to run away from project 2025, traveling this summer maybe don’t let the airport scan your face., what kamala harris really thinks about israel and gaza, has netanyahu finally lost america, j.d. vance didn’t have sex with a couch. but he’s still extremely weird., today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

More in The Highlight

America’s obsession with hot dogs, explained

The death of the summer job is a good thing

The case against summer

Mothers and daughters fight— but it doesn’t have to be the end of the world

What if absolutely everything is conscious?

The Highlight — The Summer Issue

The strange ways we do (and don’t) consume glizzies.

Teen jobs aren’t what they used to be. They’re worse.

Your summer won’t be as good as you think it will be. It never is.

How to handle tension in the teen years without ruining your relationship.

Scientists spent ages mocking panpsychism. Now, some are warming to the idea that plants, cells, and even atoms are conscious.

The quest for the timeless wedding; how we buy hot dogs; the changing summer job; the case against summer and more!

There’s a fantastic cameo in Deadpool & Wolverine’s post-credits scene

What we know about the police killing of Sonya Massey

Inspired by the Olympics? You can become an athlete at any age.

There’s one perfect way to see Twisters

Homework could have an impact on kids’ health. Should schools ban it?

Professor of Education, Penn State

Disclosure statement

Gerald K. LeTendre has received funding from the National Science Foundation and the Spencer Foundation.

Penn State provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation US.

View all partners

Reformers in the Progressive Era (from the 1890s to 1920s) depicted homework as a “sin” that deprived children of their playtime . Many critics voice similar concerns today.

Yet there are many parents who feel that from early on, children need to do homework if they are to succeed in an increasingly competitive academic culture. School administrators and policy makers have also weighed in, proposing various policies on homework .

So, does homework help or hinder kids?

For the last 10 years, my colleagues and I have been investigating international patterns in homework using databases like the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) . If we step back from the heated debates about homework and look at how homework is used around the world, we find the highest homework loads are associated with countries that have lower incomes and higher social inequality.

Does homework result in academic success?

Let’s first look at the global trends on homework.

Undoubtedly, homework is a global phenomenon ; students from all 59 countries that participated in the 2007 Trends in Math and Science Study (TIMSS) reported getting homework. Worldwide, only less than 7% of fourth graders said they did no homework.

TIMSS is one of the few data sets that allow us to compare many nations on how much homework is given (and done). And the data show extreme variation.

For example, in some nations, like Algeria, Kuwait and Morocco, more than one in five fourth graders reported high levels of homework. In Japan, less than 3% of students indicated they did more than four hours of homework on a normal school night.

TIMSS data can also help to dispel some common stereotypes. For instance, in East Asia, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan – countries that had the top rankings on TIMSS average math achievement – reported rates of heavy homework that were below the international mean.

In the Netherlands, nearly one out of five fourth graders reported doing no homework on an average school night, even though Dutch fourth graders put their country in the top 10 in terms of average math scores in 2007.

Going by TIMSS data, the US is neither “ A Nation at Rest” as some have claimed, nor a nation straining under excessive homework load . Fourth and eighth grade US students fall in the middle of the 59 countries in the TIMSS data set, although only 12% of US fourth graders reported high math homework loads compared to an international average of 21%.

So, is homework related to high academic success?

At a national level, the answer is clearly no. Worldwide, homework is not associated with high national levels of academic achievement .

But, the TIMSS can’t be used to determine if homework is actually helping or hurting academic performance overall , it can help us see how much homework students are doing, and what conditions are associated with higher national levels of homework.

We have typically found that the highest homework loads are associated with countries that have lower incomes and higher levels of social inequality – not hallmarks that most countries would want to emulate.

Impact of homework on kids

TIMSS data also show us how even elementary school kids are being burdened with large amounts of homework.

Almost 10% of fourth graders worldwide (one in 10 children) reported spending multiple hours on homework each night. Globally, one in five fourth graders report 30 minutes or more of homework in math three to four times a week.

These reports of large homework loads should worry parents, teachers and policymakers alike.

Empirical studies have linked excessive homework to sleep disruption , indicating a negative relationship between the amount of homework, perceived stress and physical health.

What constitutes excessive amounts of homework varies by age, and may also be affected by cultural or family expectations. Young adolescents in middle school, or teenagers in high school, can study for longer duration than elementary school children.

But for elementary school students, even 30 minutes of homework a night, if combined with other sources of academic stress, can have a negative impact . Researchers in China have linked homework of two or more hours per night with sleep disruption .

Even though some cultures may normalize long periods of studying for elementary age children, there is no evidence to support that this level of homework has clear academic benefits . Also, when parents and children conflict over homework, and strong negative emotions are created, homework can actually have a negative association with academic achievement.

Should there be “no homework” policies?

Administrators and policymakers have not been reluctant to wade into the debates on homework and to formulate policies . France’s president, Francois Hollande, even proposed that homework be banned because it may have inegaliatarian effects.

However, “zero-tolerance” homework policies for schools, or nations, are likely to create as many problems as they solve because of the wide variation of homework effects. Contrary to what Hollande said, research suggests that homework is not a likely source of social class differences in academic achievement .

Homework, in fact, is an important component of education for students in the middle and upper grades of schooling.

Policymakers and researchers should look more closely at the connection between poverty, inequality and higher levels of homework. Rather than seeing homework as a “solution,” policymakers should question what facets of their educational system might impel students, teachers and parents to increase homework loads.

At the classroom level, in setting homework, teachers need to communicate with their peers and with parents to assure that the homework assigned overall for a grade is not burdensome, and that it is indeed having a positive effect.

Perhaps, teachers can opt for a more individualized approach to homework. If teachers are careful in selecting their assignments – weighing the student’s age, family situation and need for skill development – then homework can be tailored in ways that improve the chance of maximum positive impact for any given student.

I strongly suspect that when teachers face conditions such as pressure to meet arbitrary achievement goals, lack of planning time or little autonomy over curriculum, homework becomes an easy option to make up what could not be covered in class.

Whatever the reason, the fact is a significant percentage of elementary school children around the world are struggling with large homework loads. That alone could have long-term negative consequences for their academic success.

• Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
• Elementary school
• Academic success

Lecturer, Small Animal Clinical Studies (Primary Care)

Organizational Behaviour – Assistant / Associate Professor (Tenure-Track)

Apply for State Library of Queensland's next round of research opportunities

Associate Professor, Psychology

Professor and Head of School, School of Communication and Arts

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Don't Miss a Post! Subscribe

• Guest Posts

• Educational AI
• Edtech Tools
• Edtech Apps
• Teacher Resources
• Special Education
• Edtech for Kids
• Buying Guides for Teachers

Educators Technology

Innovative EdTech for teachers, educators, parents, and students

Is Homework Bad? Here Is What Research Says

By Med Kharbach, PhD | Last Update: April 30, 2024

Homework is a controversial topic and the object of differing opinions among teachers, parents, and educators . While some highly value it considering it key in scholarly achievement and academic performance, others view it as a nuisance to students’ independence and a cause for unwarranted emotional and physical stress for kids. 

The controversy surrounding homework does not only revolve around its value, but also around questions such as: How much homework is enough homework? How much time should be allotted to homework? How frequent should homework be assigned? Does help from others (e.g., parents or other students) undermine the value of homework? Should homework be banned? Should kids be assigned homework? and many more.

However, as the research cited in this article demonstrates, homework, controversial as it is, has some benefits for students although these benefits differ according to various factors including students age, skill and grade level, students socio-economic status, purpose behind homework, duration of the homework, among other considerations. In this article, I cover some of the key issues related to homework and provide research resources to help teachers and parents learn more about homework.

What Does Homework Mean? 

According to Cooper (1989), homework is defined as “tasks assigned to students by school teachers that are meant to be carried out during non-school hours”. Cooper’s definition is similar to the one found in Cambridge Dictionary which defines homework as “work that teachers give their students to do at home” or as “studying that students do at home to prepare for school”.

There is way more to homework than what these general definitions outline. Homework assignments are not equal and there are various variables that can affect the value and effectiveness of homework.

Some of these variables, according to Blazer (2009) , include difficulty level of assigned tasks, skill and subject areas covered, completion timeframe (short or long term), degree of autonomy and individualization, social context (done independently or with the help of others), obligatory or voluntary, whether it will be submitted for grading or not, among other variables.

Is Homework Bad?

Going through the scholarly literature and regardless of the disagreement and controversies the topic of homework raises, there is a growing consensus that homework has some benefits , especially for students in middle and high school ( National Education Association ).

One of the most comprehensive research studies on homework is a meta-analysis done by professor Harris Cooper and his colleagues (2006) and published in the journal Review of Educational Research .

In this study, Cooper et al analyzed a large pool of research studies on homework conducted in the United States between between 1987 and 2003. Their findings indicate the existence of ‘a positive influence of homework on achievement’.

The influence is mainly noticed in students in grades 7-12 and less in students grades K-6. However, even though kids benefit less from homework, Cooper et al. confirm the importance of some form of homework for students of all ages.

What Is The Purpose of Homework? 

There are several reasons for assigning homework. Some of these reasons according to Blazer include:

– Review and reinforce materials learned in class – Check students understanding and assess their skills and knowledge – Enhance students study skills – Provide students with learning opportunities where they can use their newly acquired skills to explore new insights. – Enable students to hone in their search skills and apply them to find resources on an assigned topic – Help students develop social emotional learning skills – Enable students to develop functional study habits and life skills. These include time management and organization skills, problem solving skills, self-discipline, accountability, self-confidence, communication skills, critical thinking skills, inquisitiveness, among others.

Drawbacks of Homework  

Critics of homework argue that it has less value and can result in negative consequences. In her literature review, Blazer (2009) summarized some of these drawbacks in the following points:

– Homework can cause emotional and physical fatigue – Homework takes away from kids’ leisure time and interferes with their natural development. – Homework can drive students to develop negative attitudes towards school and learning. – Assigned homework prevents students from engaging in self-directed and independent learning. – Homework can interfere with students’ engagement in social activities including sports and community involvement. – Excessive homework can create tension and stress and lead to friction between parents and kids. – Homework may encourage a culture of cheating – Homework “can widen social inequalities. Compared to their higher income peers, students from lower income homes are more likely to work after school and less likely to have an environment conducive to studying”.

How Much Homework Should Students Have? 

According to Fernández-Alonso, Suárez-Álvarez and Muñiz ( 2015 ), spending 60 minutes per day doing homework is considered a reasonably effective time. However, the study also added that the amount of help and effort needed to do homework is key in this equation because “when it comes to homework”, as the authors concluded, “how is more important than how much”. 

This conclusion is congruent with several other studies (e.g., Farrow et al. (1999), that emphasize the idea that when doing homework, quality is more important than quantity. When the variables of time and effort are taken into account, the question of how much homework should students have becomes statistically irrelevant.

Catty Vatterott, author of Rethinking Homework: Best Practices that Support Diverse Needs , also advocates for quality over quantity when assigning homework tasks.She argues that instead of banning homework altogether, we can embrace a more open approach to homework; one that deemphasizes grading and differentiates tasks.

Along similar lines, studies have also confirmed the correlation between autonomy and positive performance. Autonomous students, that is those who can do homework on their own, are more likely to perform better academically (Fernández-Alonso, 2015; Dettmers et al.,2010, 2011; Trautwein & Lüdtke, 2007, (Xu, 2010a). Findings from these studies indicate that “students who need frequent or constant help with homework have worse academic results.” (Fernández-Alonso, 2015)

Besides the 60 minutes per day recommendation for older students, there is also the 10 minutes rule which, according to Harris Cooper , works by multiplying a kid’s grade by 10 to determine how much time they need for homework per day.

According to the 10 minute rule, first graders require 10 minutes per day of homework, second graders 20 minutes, and for each subsequent year you add another 10 minutes so that at the last year of high school, grade 12 students will have 2 hours of daily homework. As Cooper argues, “when you assign more than these levels, the law of diminishing returns or even negative effects – stress especially – begin to appear”.

The debate over homework is far from being settled and probably will never reach definitive conclusions. With that being said, l personally view homework as a heuristic for learning. It scaffolds classroom learning and helps students reinforce learned skills. For elementary students, homework should not be tied to any academic grades or achievement expectation.

In fact, kids’ homework assignments, if any, should align with the overall interests of kids in that it should support and include elements of play, fun, and exploration. Needless to mention that, once outside school, kids are to be given ample time to play, explore, and learn by doing.

As Cooper stated “A good way to think about homework is the way you think about medications or dietary supplements. If you take too little, they’ll have no effect. If you take too much, they can kill you. If you take the right amount, you’ll get better.”

Research on Homework 

The topic of homework has been the subject of several academic research studies. The following is a sample of some of these research studies:

• Blazer, C. (2009). Literature review: Homework. Miami, FL: Miami Dade County Public Schools.
• Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework. Educational Leadership, 47, 85–91.
• Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76, 1– 62.
• Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, M., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2010). Homework works if homework quality is high: Using multilevel modeling to predict the development of achievement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology,
• Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2009). The relationship between homework time and achievement is not universal: Evidence from multilevel analyses in 40 countries. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20, 375– 405.
• Epstein, J. L., & van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes: Teachers’ roles in designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 181–193
• Farrow, S., Tymms, P., & Henderson, B. (1999). Homework and attainment in primary schools. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 323–341
• Goldstein, A. (1960). Does homework help? A review of research. The Elementary School Journal, 60, 212–224.
• Trautwein, U., & Köller, O. (2003). The relationship between homework and achievement: Still much of a mystery. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 115–145
• Warton, P. M. (2001). The forgotten voices in homework: Views of students. Educational Psychologist, 36, 155–165.
• Xu, J. (2013). Why do students have difficulties completing homework? The need for homework management. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1, 98 –105.
• Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Homework practices and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 397– 417.
• Kralovec, E., & Buell, J. (2001). End Homework Now. Educational Leadership, 58(7), 39-42.
• Krashen, S. (2005). The Hard Work Hypothesis: Is Doing Your Homework Enough to Overcome the Effects of Poverty? Multicultural Education, 12(4), 16-19.
• Lenard, W. (1997). The Homework Scam. Teacher Magazine, 9(1), 60-61.
• Marzano, R.J., & Pickering, D.J. (2007). The Case For and Against Homework. Educational Leadership, 64(6), 74-79.
• Skinner, D. (2004). The Homework Wars. Public Interest, 154, Winter, 49-60.
• Corno, L. (1996). Homework is a Complicated Thing. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 27-30.
• Forster, K. (2000). Homework: A Bridge Too Far? Issues in Educational Research, 10(1), 21-37.
• Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Battiato, A.C., Walker, J.M., Reed, R.P., DeLong, J.M., & Jones, K.P. (2001). Parent Involvement in Homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 195-209.

Books on Homework 

Here are some interesting books that profoundly explore the concept of homework:

1. The Homework Myth: Why Our Kids Get Too Much of a Bad Thing , by Kohn (2006)

• 2. Rethinking Homework: Best Practices that Support Diverse Needs , by Catty Vatterot
• 3. The End of Homework: How Homework Disrupts Families, Overburdens Children, and Limits Learning , by Kralovec, E., & Buell, J. (2000)
• 4. The Case Against Homework: How Homework Is Hurting Children and What Parents Can Do About It , by Sara Bennett and Nancy Kalish

Join our mailing list

Never miss an EdTech beat! Subscribe now for exclusive insights and resources .

Meet Med Kharbach, PhD

Dr. Med Kharbach is an influential voice in the global educational technology landscape, with an extensive background in educational studies and a decade-long experience as a K-12 teacher. Holding a Ph.D. from Mount Saint Vincent University in Halifax, Canada, he brings a unique perspective to the educational world by integrating his profound academic knowledge with his hands-on teaching experience. Dr. Kharbach's academic pursuits encompass curriculum studies, discourse analysis, language learning/teaching, language and identity, emerging literacies, educational technology, and research methodologies. His work has been presented at numerous national and international conferences and published in various esteemed academic journals.

Join our email list for exclusive EdTech content.

StudySkills.com

Selskills.com.

• (800) 390 SOAR

• About SOAR ®
• What Is SOAR ®
• Who SOAR ® Helps
• Why SOAR ® Works
• Curriculum Pricing
• Virtual Learning
• Proven Results
• How to Get Started
• Training & Professional Development
• What Is SOAR ® ?
• Virtual/Hybrid Learning Skills
• SOAR ® Learning & Soft Skills App (Home Edition)
• Special Help
• Student Articles
• Parent & Student Store
• Educator Store
• How to Order (Schools)
• The At-Home Solution

Legal Homework Rights: What’s the Limit on Homework?

Hi, I just read your article Titled “Can You ‘Opt Out’ of Homework?” ( Click HERE  for the original article. ) I enjoyed the article but I guess I need a more concrete answer to the question of my legal homework rights: CAN I LEGALLY OPT OUT OF HOMEWORK FOR MY CHILD? – Dawn, SOAR ®  Parent

The answer is a resounding, Yes!

You have legal rights to put limits on your child’s homework time.

When homework begins to erode family relationships and/or increases the students anxiety, its time to make modifications. First, try communicating and working collaboratively with teachers and administrators.  If that doesn’t work, then you do have legal homework rights…

Legal Homework Rights

You absolutely do have legal rights to put reasonable limits on your child’s homework time. The legal tool you want to use is called a 504. For a link that provides a quick overview to the 504 law, click HERE .

504: The Legal Homework Rights Tool

Basically, the 504 law refers to legal homework rights (known as “accommodations”) that must be made for a child’s “impairment.”  As you’ll read, “impairments” are defined very loosely throughout the law, and this is done purposely to accommodate all students’ various needs. If your child has a diagnosis of ADHD, Dyslexia, etc. that will help, but it’s not necessary.

I have seen the 504 law used throughout my career as an educator for students and families exercising their legal homework rights.  I have also used it with my own children to get schools to accommodate what I felt was appropriate.

The 504 Process

The actual 504 process includes paperwork and a series of meetings. The meetings typically include a school counselor, a teacher, an administrator, and you and your child. In the meeting, all of your concerns will be documented and specific actions or remedies (like limiting homework) will be recorded. This document becomes a legally binding contract that your child’s teacher and administrator are required to uphold.

Legal Homework Rights: What’s a Reasonable Amount of Time for Homework?

So, what is a reasonable recommendation regarding time spent on homework?

We support the “10 Minute Rule.”   That’s a maximum of 10 minutes times the grade-level of the child. So, 10-minute max for 1 st grade, 20-minute max for 2 nd grade, up to 120-minute max for 12 th grade.

The “10-minute rule” is a great accommodation for a 504, because it is set to increase the limit on homework time as the child progresses through school. We’re not talking about eliminating homework just to create an easy path for our children.  Parents that have significant battles over homework, that can easily last an hour or more, understand that homework reaches a point where it is not productive.

Too much homework is destructive t o motivation, self-esteem, and to family relationships.  So, don’t be afraid to exercise your legal rights. This is the point where we want to pursue our legal homework rights.

In addition to pursuing 504 accommodations, you may want to give your students better skills to handle the demands of school.  To learn more about the SOAR ®  Parent Products, click HERE .

Brian Winter, M.Ed.

Co-Author, SOAR Social-Emotional Learning Skills

Six Steps to Conquer the Chaos

" * " indicates required fields

SOAR ® in the News

The SOAR ® Curriculum

The most critical learning, organizing, and communication skills needed for school. Learn more  here.

Who’s Using SOAR ® ?

SOAR ® Guarantee

Click here to  learn more .

Is homework a necessary evil?

After decades of debate, researchers are still sorting out the truth about homework’s pros and cons. One point they can agree on: Quality assignments matter.

By Kirsten Weir

March 2016, Vol 47, No. 3

Print version: page 36

• Schools and Classrooms

Homework battles have raged for decades. For as long as kids have been whining about doing their homework, parents and education reformers have complained that homework's benefits are dubious. Meanwhile many teachers argue that take-home lessons are key to helping students learn. Now, as schools are shifting to the new (and hotly debated) Common Core curriculum standards, educators, administrators and researchers are turning a fresh eye toward the question of homework's value.

But when it comes to deciphering the research literature on the subject, homework is anything but an open book.

The 10-minute rule

In many ways, homework seems like common sense. Spend more time practicing multiplication or studying Spanish vocabulary and you should get better at math or Spanish. But it may not be that simple.

Homework can indeed produce academic benefits, such as increased understanding and retention of the material, says Duke University social psychologist Harris Cooper, PhD, one of the nation's leading homework researchers. But not all students benefit. In a review of studies published from 1987 to 2003, Cooper and his colleagues found that homework was linked to better test scores in high school and, to a lesser degree, in middle school. Yet they found only faint evidence that homework provided academic benefit in elementary school ( Review of Educational Research , 2006).

Then again, test scores aren't everything. Homework proponents also cite the nonacademic advantages it might confer, such as the development of personal responsibility, good study habits and time-management skills. But as to hard evidence of those benefits, "the jury is still out," says Mollie Galloway, PhD, associate professor of educational leadership at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon. "I think there's a focus on assigning homework because [teachers] think it has these positive outcomes for study skills and habits. But we don't know for sure that's the case."

Even when homework is helpful, there can be too much of a good thing. "There is a limit to how much kids can benefit from home study," Cooper says. He agrees with an oft-cited rule of thumb that students should do no more than 10 minutes a night per grade level — from about 10 minutes in first grade up to a maximum of about two hours in high school. Both the National Education Association and National Parent Teacher Association support that limit.

Beyond that point, kids don't absorb much useful information, Cooper says. In fact, too much homework can do more harm than good. Researchers have cited drawbacks, including boredom and burnout toward academic material, less time for family and extracurricular activities, lack of sleep and increased stress.

In a recent study of Spanish students, Rubén Fernández-Alonso, PhD, and colleagues found that students who were regularly assigned math and science homework scored higher on standardized tests. But when kids reported having more than 90 to 100 minutes of homework per day, scores declined ( Journal of Educational Psychology , 2015).

"At all grade levels, doing other things after school can have positive effects," Cooper says. "To the extent that homework denies access to other leisure and community activities, it's not serving the child's best interest."

Children of all ages need down time in order to thrive, says Denise Pope, PhD, a professor of education at Stanford University and a co-founder of Challenge Success, a program that partners with secondary schools to implement policies that improve students' academic engagement and well-being.

"Little kids and big kids need unstructured time for play each day," she says. Certainly, time for physical activity is important for kids' health and well-being. But even time spent on social media can help give busy kids' brains a break, she says.

All over the map

But are teachers sticking to the 10-minute rule? Studies attempting to quantify time spent on homework are all over the map, in part because of wide variations in methodology, Pope says.

A 2014 report by the Brookings Institution examined the question of homework, comparing data from a variety of sources. That report cited findings from a 2012 survey of first-year college students in which 38.4 percent reported spending six hours or more per week on homework during their last year of high school. That was down from 49.5 percent in 1986 ( The Brown Center Report on American Education , 2014).

The Brookings report also explored survey data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which asked 9-, 13- and 17-year-old students how much homework they'd done the previous night. They found that between 1984 and 2012, there was a slight increase in homework for 9-year-olds, but homework amounts for 13- and 17-year-olds stayed roughly the same, or even decreased slightly.

Yet other evidence suggests that some kids might be taking home much more work than they can handle. Robert Pressman, PhD, and colleagues recently investigated the 10-minute rule among more than 1,100 students, and found that elementary-school kids were receiving up to three times as much homework as recommended. As homework load increased, so did family stress, the researchers found ( American Journal of Family Therapy , 2015).

Many high school students also seem to be exceeding the recommended amounts of homework. Pope and Galloway recently surveyed more than 4,300 students from 10 high-achieving high schools. Students reported bringing home an average of just over three hours of homework nightly ( Journal of Experiential Education , 2013).

On the positive side, students who spent more time on homework in that study did report being more behaviorally engaged in school — for instance, giving more effort and paying more attention in class, Galloway says. But they were not more invested in the homework itself. They also reported greater academic stress and less time to balance family, friends and extracurricular activities. They experienced more physical health problems as well, such as headaches, stomach troubles and sleep deprivation. "Three hours per night is too much," Galloway says.

In the high-achieving schools Pope and Galloway studied, more than 90 percent of the students go on to college. There's often intense pressure to succeed academically, from both parents and peers. On top of that, kids in these communities are often overloaded with extracurricular activities, including sports and clubs. "They're very busy," Pope says. "Some kids have up to 40 hours a week — a full-time job's worth — of extracurricular activities." And homework is yet one more commitment on top of all the others.

"Homework has perennially acted as a source of stress for students, so that piece of it is not new," Galloway says. "But especially in upper-middle-class communities, where the focus is on getting ahead, I think the pressure on students has been ratcheted up."

Yet homework can be a problem at the other end of the socioeconomic spectrum as well. Kids from wealthier homes are more likely to have resources such as computers, Internet connections, dedicated areas to do schoolwork and parents who tend to be more educated and more available to help them with tricky assignments. Kids from disadvantaged homes are more likely to work at afterschool jobs, or to be home without supervision in the evenings while their parents work multiple jobs, says Lea Theodore, PhD, a professor of school psychology at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. They are less likely to have computers or a quiet place to do homework in peace.

"Homework can highlight those inequities," she says.

Quantity vs. quality

One point researchers agree on is that for all students, homework quality matters. But too many kids are feeling a lack of engagement with their take-home assignments, many experts say. In Pope and Galloway's research, only 20 percent to 30 percent of students said they felt their homework was useful or meaningful.

"Students are assigned a lot of busywork. They're naming it as a primary stressor, but they don't feel it's supporting their learning," Galloway says.

"Homework that's busywork is not good for anyone," Cooper agrees. Still, he says, different subjects call for different kinds of assignments. "Things like vocabulary and spelling are learned through practice. Other kinds of courses require more integration of material and drawing on different skills."

But critics say those skills can be developed with many fewer hours of homework each week. Why assign 50 math problems, Pope asks, when 10 would be just as constructive? One Advanced Placement biology teacher she worked with through Challenge Success experimented with cutting his homework assignments by a third, and then by half. "Test scores didn't go down," she says. "You can have a rigorous course and not have a crazy homework load."

Still, changing the culture of homework won't be easy. Teachers-to-be get little instruction in homework during their training, Pope says. And despite some vocal parents arguing that kids bring home too much homework, many others get nervous if they think their child doesn't have enough. "Teachers feel pressured to give homework because parents expect it to come home," says Galloway. "When it doesn't, there's this idea that the school might not be doing its job."

Galloway argues teachers and school administrators need to set clear goals when it comes to homework — and parents and students should be in on the discussion, too. "It should be a broader conversation within the community, asking what's the purpose of homework? Why are we giving it? Who is it serving? Who is it not serving?"

Until schools and communities agree to take a hard look at those questions, those backpacks full of take-home assignments will probably keep stirring up more feelings than facts.

Further reading

• Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987-2003. Review of Educational Research, 76 (1), 1–62. doi: 10.3102/00346543076001001
• Galloway, M., Connor, J., & Pope, D. (2013). Nonacademic effects of homework in privileged, high-performing high schools. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81 (4), 490–510. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2012.745469
• Pope, D., Brown, M., & Miles, S. (2015). Overloaded and underprepared: Strategies for stronger schools and healthy, successful kids . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Letters to the Editor

• Send us a letter

Thanks for visiting! GoodRx is not available outside of the United States. If you are trying to access this site from the United States and believe you have received this message in error, please reach out to [email protected] and let us know.

Is Homework Illegal? Examining the Legality And Impact Of Homework In Education

Table of Contents

In education, the contentious issue of homework legality and its impact on student’s lives has been a topic of considerable debate for years. Students and parents often wonder, “Is homework illegal?” In this article, we will delve into the history of homework, its legality, types, and effects on education.

A Brief History of Homework

Homework has a long-standing tradition that traces back to the 19th century. However, there is no definitive answer to the question of who invented homework. It is widely believed that homework emerged as a tool to help students review and apply what they learned in the classroom..

Despite its early origins, homework has faced criticism throughout history. In the late 1960s, anti-homework groups emerged due to concerns about excessive homework burdens on students. Nevertheless, homework has remained a common practice in educational institutions worldwide, from kindergarten to high school.

Is Homework Illegal?

Is homework illegal? The straightforward answer is no, homework is not illegal. Teachers have the freedom to assign tasks to their students. Assigning homework as a means for students to comprehend and reinforce classroom material is a widely accepted practice in education. However, assigning excessive homework or failing to provide reasonable alternatives could be considered academic misconduct. Importantly, students are not legally obligated to complete their task, and there are no legal consequences for not doing so.

Why Is Homework Legal?

Several justifications support the legality of homework:.

• Global Acceptance: Homework is a standard and widely accepted practice in classrooms around the world
• Learning Enhancement: Homework is considered vital for students as it provides an opportunity to review and apply classroom concepts
• No Specific Laws: There are no specific laws or regulations governing homework, allowing schools and teachers flexibility in assigning it
• Skill Development: Homework is believed to foster essential skills such as time management and problem-solving, despite ongoing debates about its effectiveness

Different Types of Homework

The U.S. Department of Education provides teachers with resources for various types of homework assignments. These include:

• Practice: Homework that requires students to practice specific skills to enhance mastery, such as math problems
• Preparation: Assignments that introduce upcoming material to prepare students for future lessons
• Extension: Homework designed to challenge students to apply what they have learned in creative ways, improving problem-solving skills
• Integration: Tasks that require the application of multiple skills to reinforce the learning experience, such as book reports

Does Homework Improve the Quality of Education?

The debate surrounding the impact of homework on education persists. Let’s explore both the advantages and disadvantages to determine whether homework enhances the quality of instruction .

Advantages of Homework:

• Skill Development: Homework cultivates various skills like time management, self-discipline, autonomy, and critical analysis
• Consolidation of Learning: It allows students to reinforce classroom learning and retain knowledge effectively
• Parental Involvement: Homework engages parents in their children’s education, helping identify strengths and weaknesses and fostering academic support

Disadvantages of Homework:

• Stress: Excessive homework can lead to stress-related issues, affecting students’ physical and mental health
• Loss of Free Time: Homework can deprive children of valuable downtime, essential for relaxation and skill development outside the classroom
• Effectiveness: Some studies suggest that excessive homework may not significantly improve academic performance and can be detrimental to student’s well-being

Final Words: is Homework Illegal

In conclusion, the question of whether homework is illegal is straightforward: it is not. Homework is a longstanding educational practice that is considered legitimate and necessary for reinforcing learning. However, the debate continues regarding its effectiveness and potential drawbacks. It is crucial for educators to strike a balance when assigning homework, considering students’ ages, skill levels, and individual needs. Ultimately, the goal should be to enhance learning without overwhelming students with an excessive workload.

Is Watching Bestiality Illegal? The Legal Landscape Of Bestiality

Can Ukraine Defend Itself Against Russian Invasion?

Vladimir Putin, The Wagner Group, Dmitry Utkin, And Why Russia Isn’t Really In Ukraine To Denazify It

Biden Administration Allows Ban on Apple’ Watch Imports

Capitol Hill Politics

Warren and sanders spar on gender issues at iowa debate, you may also like.

New York (Transatlantic Today) – Is watching bestiality illegal? The topic of bestiality, defined as the act of a human engaging in sexual activity...

Ukrainian officials have spoken of establishing territorial defense units and partisan warfare, but they admit that these resources are insufficient to thwart a Russian...

As Russia continues its invasion of Ukraine, it does so while featuring neo-nazi mercenaries from groups like the Wagner Group and others.

Apple Inc. strives to defend a business that yields roughly $17 billion annually. The firm is demanding a US sales embargo on its smartwatches...

Follow Transatlantic Today

Transatlantic Today is monthly online magazine based in Washington DC. We provide unique neutral an independent coverage on international and US affairs with social focus on US politics. Our website publish features and analysis also we cover areas like Africa, the Asia – Pacific, Latin America and the Middle East.

• Advertising
• Cookie Policy

Join Our Newsletter

Transatalntic Today Magazine  All Rights Reserved © 2021

Is Homework Illegal In The United States?

When Horace Mann invented school, homework became an important part of it. But there is one question in students’ minds “is homework illegal? – because students have to do a lot of homework. They don’t have time to do other things. They want to play outside games and hang out with their friends. But teachers give them a lot of homework to do, and they have to complete it. 

In many American elementary schools, homework has been banned. Because they find it stressful, homework can affect students’ health by causing stomach and headaches issues. 

Homework is very time consuming and stressful for students. The homework issue is still debatable, but to be on the safe side, you have to be open-minded about it because, for many reasons, you could say it is illegal, and for some, it is legal. In this blog, we will start with is homework illegal.

What Is Homework?

Table of Contents

It is defined as an out-of-class task that teachers assign to the students to do at home. Students have to complete their homework at home. In the United States, a high school student will usually have several hours of homework per night. Homework is used to test students and see how they learn. It can also be used to make sure they understand their school work.

Why Is Homework Important?

Is homework illegal? Homework is important for many reasons. Here are some reasons why is homework important:

• It motivates students to structure their time wisely. And it also teaches students to take all responsibility for their work.
• Parents can also get the opportunity to work together with their students. Through that, parents can develop a strong relationship with their students. 
• Homework can teach students to solve their problems on their own. 
• Homework can help students to get ready for the next class.
•  It can help students organize their thoughts and prepare for tests and exams.
• It helps students understand a subject better and gives them a greater understanding of the material than they would get from just reading the chapter.

Is Doing Homework a Waste Of Time?

• Yes, it is a waste of time because they don’t have time to do other things when students do homework. Students only do homework when they come back home from school. Students should also have free time to enjoy life. Students should do other activities such as spending time with family, playing outside games, handing out with friends etc. 
• Many students take pressure to complete their homework every night, whereas they should relax their minds and body. 
• Many teachers don’t grade papers because they don’t have time as they are very busy designing lesson plans. 
• Homework can affects the performance of children. 
• Children should be students at school and children at home because, at home, students are children of parents. Parents should teach their children to be responsible at home as well. You can also read why homework is bad .

Why Should Students Have Homework?

Homework Motivates People To Do The Practice.

Many people believe that homework can motivate the discipline of practice. At the same time, homework can be boring and time-consuming compared to other activities. Homework helps students to make concepts more clear. It also gives them opportunities when they start their careers.

Homework Gets Parents Involved.

Homework is always a source of conflict between parents and children. Parents require their children to complete homework to develop discipline and get a good education. It allows parents to keep up with what children are doing in school. 

It Teaches Time-Management

Homework is not just finishing the assigned tasks. It can also develop time management skills when students require completing their homework on time. They have to make a schedule for their tasks. So they can finish their homework on time. 

Homework Allows For More Learning Time

Homework gives students more time to complete their studies. School hours aren’t always enough time for children to understand essential topics, and homework can counter the effects of time shortages, benefiting students in the long run, even if they don’t realize it.

What Are The Advantages And Disadvantages Of Assigning Homework?

Advantages of homework.

Is homework illegal? There are many advantages of assigning homework . Here are some of the main advantages: 

• Homework can assist students in learning more material. 
• If students spend more time on their homework, they will be able to improve their learning better. 
• It can assist students in developing good study habits. 
• Homework can also prepare children for college and universities workloads. 

Disadvantages Of Homework

There are also many disadvantages to assigning homework to students. Here are some disadvantages of homework:

• For many students, homework is very stressful. They feel under pressure, and they will never have any free time. 
• Secondly, when students get more homework, it can be lead to cheating and academic dishonesty issues.
• Students have a lot of homework, that’s why they don’t have time for outdoor activities. you should also read why homework should be banned .

Is It Illegal To Do My Homework?

Is homework illegal? Legally, you don’t have to do your homework. No law enforcement body can arrest you for not doing homework on any day. But, schools have the right to decide what happens to a student who doesn’t complete homework. 

Homework is an important part of the learning approach in school. If you continuously ignore homework, you can be asked to leave the school. If your parents allow you to ignore homework, they can state their case to the school board and an attempt to get an exemption. But majorly, such cases result in a negative response and the child gets expelled from the school.

So, if you are refusing to do your homework and not breaking any state laws, you have no control over the school’s actions after refusing to do your homework. They have the authority to decide what they deem necessary in any situation.

Is It Worth Buying homework?

In my opinion, paying someone to do homework is beneficial. Because many students have a busy schedule and can’t do their homework on time, if you are one of them, I will suggest you take help from professional experts who can provide you with the best assignment solution.  

Many students get benefits from homework companies providers. Because they need free time for outdoor games, spending time with family, and hanging out with friends. Reputable homework companies always provide top-notch homework services within the given deadline. 

Is it illegal to do someone’s homework?

No! It is not illegal to do someone’s homework as you know that when we were young, our parents helped us with our homework. They helped us to do our homework on time and correct our mistakes. Even now, many students take help from professional experts. 

But When it comes to ethics, we should remember that students will be independent. When we do homework by ourselves, we can easily create other questions similar to the homework. And it helps us to explain to others and solve the homework ourselves.

This helps students in the long run with academics. And students learn to work well with little supervision. On the other hand, try to teach your friends similar tasks, and they can solve the homework themselves when you teach well to them. 

Can I Refuse For My Child To Do Homework?

Absolutely yes, you can refuse for your child to do homework. Because you have the legal right to put limits on your child’s homework time. 

Sometimes when students do a lot of homework it destroys family relationships. And also it increases the student’s anxiety. That’s why many people think that it times to make modifications. For this first, you should try to communicate with teachers and administrators. If that does not work, then you have legal homework rights. The legal right is also called a 504.

How Is Homework Harmful?

According to the research, when teachers give homework to the students they spend too much time on homework. Because they think that if they can’t complete their homework, then teachers will punish them. That’s why they spend too much time on homework at night. It may affect stress, physical health problems, and a lack of balance. 

Why Homework Should Be Banned?

Here are some reasons why homework should be banned :

• It is a waste of time for students.
• It can affect the student’s physical health
• Homework doesn’t provide student’s practical knowledge.
• Homework can also affect the student’s mental health.
• Many students start to hate studying because of homework.
• Homework force students to work like a robot
• It is very boring for many students 
• Homework doesn’t help students that much in the study.
• Homework can create the habit of memorizing concepts in the students.
• Many teachers give a lot of homework to the students
• Students have no time for other activities
• Students can’t spend time with family because of homework
• Many students lose their confidence when they can’t complete their homework on time.
• Many students start thinking of their teacher and parents as a villain

Conclusion (Is Homework Illegal)

We hope you enjoyed our blog post on whether homework is illegal or not. The bottom line is that it depends on the individual circumstances around your case. If you’re looking for someone who will provide you with the best homework help service , please visit calltutors. They have a large team of professional writers who are experts in many subjects.

FAQs Related To Is Homework Illegal

How is homework useless.

1. No efficiency  2. No productivity 3. No agenda

How is homework harmful?

According to the research, students who spend too much time on homework may affect more stress and physical health problems. According to the study, more than two hours of homework a night can be unproductive.

Similar Articles

13 Best Tips To Write An Assignment

Whenever the new semester starts, you will get a lot of assignment writing tasks. Now you enter the new academic…

How To Do Homework Fast – 11 Tips To Do Homework Fast

Homework is one of the most important parts that have to be done by students. It has been around for…

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Partnership

Sole proprietorship, limited partnership, compare businesses, employee rights, osha regulations, labor hours, personal & family, child custody & support, guardianship, incarceration, civil and misdemeanors, legal separation, real estate law, tax, licenses & permits, business licenses, wills & trusts, power of attorney, last will & testament, living trust, living will.

• Share Tweet Email Print

CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION

What is california's no homework law.

By Teo Spengler, J.D.

August 20, 2019

Reviewed by Michelle Seidel, B.Sc., LL.B., MBA

Learn About Our Review Process

Our Review Process

We write helpful content to answer your questions from our expert network. We perform original research, solicit expert feedback, and review new content to ensure it meets our quality pledge: helpful content – Trusted, Vetted, Expert-Reviewed and Edited. Our content experts ensure our topics are complete and clearly demonstrate a depth of knowledge beyond the rote. We are incredibly worried about the state of general information available on the internet and strongly believe our mission is to give voice to unsung experts leading their respective fields. Our commitment is to provide clear, original, and accurate information in accessible formats. We have reviewed our content for bias and company-wide, we routinely meet with national experts to educate ourselves on better ways to deliver accessible content. For 15 years our company has published content with clear steps to accomplish the how, with high quality sourcing to answer the why, and with original formats to make the internet a helpful place. Read more about our editorial standards .

• Pro & Cons of Child Labor Law

Don't get too excited, kids. "No homework" laws are not current California homework policy. But there was a "no homework" law in the state at the beginning of the 20th Century that the children of that era probably appreciated. Today the question of whether homework helps or hurts kids is widely debated in California.

No Homework Law in California

Is there a "no homework law" in California today? There is not today, but there was 100 years ago. The Ladies' Home Journal magazine crusaded against homework at the turn of the century, and medical professionals and doctors testified against it, saying that it was harmful to a kid's health. Some say that the actual reason society (and parents) frowned on homework was because school kids needed time to help with chores around the house.

As a result of that, a number of big-city school districts around the country eliminated homework from the school menu. California's three biggest cities – San Francisco, Los Angeles and Sacramento – passed regulations forbidding teachers from assigning homework. And in 1901, the state passed a law banning all homework for school kids in kindergarten through eighth grade and imposing limits on the amount of homework that could be assigned to high school students.

California Homework Policy Changes

California's no-homework laws were repealed in the 1950s. That was the Cold War period and educators and politicians felt that the country needed better-educated students to create a skilled workforce, especially in the sciences. The launch of Sputnik in 1957 boosted the call for homework, since it appeared that Russian students might be more advanced than U.S. students.

The end of the Second World War also brought great changes to the United States and significant upheaval socially. Men in the military returned to their families, more people moved from agricultural lifestyle to urban areas and children were no longer expected to do as much physical work at home.

Since then, homework has crept back into the education system. People attacked progressive education as anti-intellectual, lax and dangerous for the nation. Then, in the 1980s, the United States Department of Education came full circle, publishing a pamphlet about the techniques that work best for creating smarter students, concluding that homework was a must.

California Homework Questions Today

Today, California kids from the youngest age through high school can expect homework assignments. But that doesn't mean that the homework/no homework debate is over. Various school districts or individual schools have eliminated homework in California, and while that approach makes some people happy, it makes others very unhappy.

Some educators and researchers argue that children would be better off if homework were abolished. They argue that the research does not demonstrate any tangible benefits for students, and this is especially true for younger students. In fact, studies have shown that elementary school students get no academic benefit from any amount of homework. And, the anti-homework crowd claims, excessive homework stifles a kid's natural curiosity.

However, not all parents agree. In the competitive atmosphere in schools today, just the suggestion of abolishing homework has some parents up in arms.

And high school students in the United States – who spend 5.5 to 6 hours a week on homework – are in the middle of their peers around the world. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 15-year-olds in Shanghai spend the most amount of time on homework, averaging 13.8 hours per week, while students in Finland spend the least time, at just 2.8 hours per week. It is noteworthy that Finnish kids perform just fine on academic tests despite the small amount of homework they do in comparison to teens in other nations.

• SF Gate: History of Homework
• SimpleGrad: Who Invented Homework?
• Time Magazine: Why I Think All Schools Should Abolish Homework
• The Telegraph: Homework Around the World

Teo Spengler earned a JD from U.C. Berkeley Law School. As an Assistant Attorney General in Juneau, she practiced before the Alaska Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court before opening a plaintiff's personal injury practice in San Francisco. She holds both an MA and an MFA in English/writing and enjoys writing legal blogs and articles. Her work has appeared in numerous online publications including USA Today, Legal Zoom, eHow Business, Livestrong, SF Gate, Go Banking Rates, Arizona Central, Houston Chronicle, Navy Federal Credit Union, Pearson, Quicken.com, TurboTax.com, and numerous attorney websites. Spengler splits her time between the French Basque Country and Northern California.

Related Articles

• Factors Influencing the Crime Rate
• California Education Law: Prayer in Schools
• Purpose of Criminology

Is Homework Illegal? Why Homework is Absolutely Bad for Students

Before we dive into the question”Is homework illegal (or should it be?), if you have students who are struggling or are in need of an additional challenge, gamification is a GREAT way to engage students in learning.  You can grab my 5 step guide to implementing gamification below!

Send me my Gamification Guide!

My personal homework assignment experiences.

I feel that this section might “give up the goat” as to my feelings on homework.

It was 1990, and I was a cute little 5th grader in Mrs. Scholle’s class.  I LOVED Mrs. Scholle and still do to this day.  A student taught where I attended school as a kid and would hang out in her room to chat or help with extra tasks.  While I very much remember Mrs. Scholle fondly, I vividly remember the crushing amount of homework that we were often assigned.  

I was always a student who excelled. I did not struggle with the material itself, but I remember sitting at the dining room table, crying into the night because there was sooo much work to do.  The work was tedious, repetitive, and not teaching me anything new.  I wanted to watch tv, go outside or play Nintendo, but instead, I was inside doing loads of math problems.  The sheer amount of homework is seared into my brain and shaped my views as a teacher.

My Homework Policy as a Teacher

When I had my classroom of third graders, I vowed not to assign any homework if I could help it.  If the school required it, fine, then it would be time-based, not task-based and only checked for completion.  I didn’t want to take work home, neither did they.  Why should I spend time grading work that they either flew through, didn’t understand, or had extensive help from a parent?  No one should be crying at the kitchen table after dinner. 

By that time, research had started to question the benefit of homework, and parents questioned my lack of homework.  My teammate gave out homework daily; why weren’t their children getting the same?  My reply was always the same.  For me, it was more important the kids enjoy the few free hours they had each day.  They did enough school at school.  Some kids were in sports and my gut told me that parents didn’t want to get home from a game only to have an hour of homework staring them in the face.  

To make matters more difficult, my school was 95% free and reduced lunch.  Many students went home to an empty house, or to parents who did not speak English, and therefore couldn’t help them with homework.  How was it even fair to send homework home with them? When asked if there was anything that they could do at home, I simply said “Read.  Read in any language, just read.”  

Are there homework benefits?

Does Homework Help or hurt learning?

Whether or not homework is a help or hindrance to learning is a question every teacher and administrator I have ever met struggles with.  What is too much homework for kids? Should there be homework for 2nd graders? What about online homework?  High schoolers should have homework, right?  For kids, the critical questions are, “can homework kill you?” and “is homework illegal anywhere?”. 

Unfortunately for kids, the answer to the last two questions is “no,” but the other questions have been debated for over 100 years, with the pendulum swinging in both directions.   

A short history of homework for you

I could find no definitive answer of when homework was invented.  Various sources credit Pliny the Younger from the Roman Empire, Roberto Nevilis of Italy in 1905, or Horace Mann.  It seems likely that homework, in some form or another, has existed for a long time.  

Today’s concept of homework is said to have been introduced by one of the last two men (right?! I mean, a WOMAN would have known that there is already PLENTY to do at home!).  It was invented as a punishment or a way to show power over students’ time.

Homework was controversial almost as soon as it was introduced.  At the turn of the 20th century, there were already homework bans in place in some states.  However, as fears of the cold war grew and Americans dealt with concerns about falling behind, the amount of homework given to kids increased.  Then, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, anti-homework sentiment grew again, and the amount of homework given to students decreased. THEN, just as I was entering the “workforce,” I mean, school, the country was experiencing an economic downturn.  Who else to blame but teachers?  The Department of Education thought that the amount of homework given to kids should increase.

Since then, time spent on homework has continued to increase, with Kindergarteners getting homework and some high school students reporting having up to three hours of homework each night.

Is Homework Illegal Anywhere?

The argument for why homework is important.

For those in the camp of wanting positive homework answers, you can look to Harris Cooper, a professor of psychology at Duke University.  He has created the seminal study that most people look to decide if homework is beneficial.  Cooper took studies that already existed from the mid-2000s and correlated the number of homework students reported doing to standardized test scores.  He concluded that doing more homework correlated to higher test scores, and this correlation was strongest among older students.

Detractors have pointed out several flaws in his study, such as the research is based on self-reporting of kids, which is not entirely reliable.  I would also like to see a study done directly with students, tracking the actual amount of homework and correlating it to test scores.  A meta-analysis of other studies laid over test scores isn’t very convincing for me. 

Another argument for why homework is good comes from parents.  The first reason parents say they want homework is to make them feel connected with the learning process, and it lets them know what is going on in class and feel helpful and have a home-to-school connection.  Parents also tend to use the amount of homework a teacher gives to judge the rigor of that classroom.  A teacher who provides more homework is perceived to have more a more rigorous classroom.  

In surveys, parents say they expect homework because THEY had homework.  Parents see homework as a rite of passage that every child should have, and homework = school.  

There is also the argument that homework is a great way to teach kids how to be organized.  While I believe that it can teach organization, I think there are other, better ways to support organization.  Have you ever tried to get a nine-year-old ready for baseball?   They need so much equipment, and the natural consequences of missing something are pretty immediate.  Students who take music lessons, art lessons, language classes need to be organized to be successful.

Of all the reading I have done over the years looking for homework answers, this is the extent of the evidence I have seen in homework support.  Now, let’s take a look at the other side.

The argument for why homework is bad

On the other hand, there have been many studies outlining many problems with homework.  

There are a few levels to the element of time.

The first problem with homework is the level of difficulty and how this affects the amount of time a student will spend on the homework.  The general “rule of thumb” that I still hear from teachers today is “10 minutes of homework per grade, per night”.  Following this rule means that 1st graders get ten minutes, second graders get 20 minutes, etc.

My question has always been, “whose ten minutes are we talking?”  Let’s say homework for second graders is supposed to take twenty minutes, and Brynn flies through her given homework in ten minutes and can go out and play.  On the other hand, Wyatt struggles through his homework, misses playtime outside, and his parents are sitting with him after dinner for over an hour, trying to help him.  They believe it is vital that he gets it done before returning to school tomorrow.

The second element is, does the student have time to complete the work at home? A common complaint in a pre-pandemic world was that children are over-scheduled.  There might not be sufficient time to do the homework at home between sports, music lessons, foreign language classes, church obligations, and art lessons. 

Thirdly, some high school students work almost full time to help support their family or are entrusted with watching siblings when they get home.  With these types of obligations, homework will fall to the back burner. 

Lack of Differentiation

Others point out that homework has not changed much.  At its best, homework WOULD ideally be differentiated for each student, giving them something engaging with enough challenge but not too difficult to lead to frustration.  As a classroom teacher, I would have LOVED to do this for my students, but time is so fleeting and precious that spending time to differentiate homework does not feel like time well spent to me.  

Differentiating homework to each student is asking a lot for already overwhelmed teachers.

Level of Parent Help

The amount of parent help that a student will have on homework varies widely between home and family situations.  I have sometimes gotten homework that is done IN the parent’s handwriting, while other students have parents whose first language is not English or whose parents work two jobs and are not around to help them.  This highlights one of the elements of lack of equity in homework.

Another issue with parent help is that sometimes it can be detrimental!  When a parent attempts to help students, sometimes the parent has forgotten or thinks they know how to tackle the homework.  I have personally seen this when dealing with new ways to approach math problems.  The newer, more concrete, and conceptual ways are sometimes confusing for parents.  This is when you see the standard algorithm pop up in homework before it the teacher introduces it in class.  When a parent helps their child in the wrong way with homework, this can lead to homework help discord in the home.

Type of Work Given

Homework has looked the same for many years.  Homework is often based on memorizing facts, repetitive, and focuses on the process, not understanding the concept.  The focus often falls on the quantity of work given, not the quality.  

When students don’t see the value in the work that they are being given, they become resentful of the task.  Again, ideally, homework would be differentiated, urging students to think critically outside of class and sparking a love of learning.  Instead, the type of work homework generally is believed to reduce creativity and independent thought outside of (and sometimes inside) school.  Here is a great article about how we should change our mindset about homework and how we use homework .

One researcher asked a pool of 50,000 students what their most significant source of stress was, and the resounding answer was homework.  More and more studies have emerged detailing the damages that stress does to our brains, and especially the brains of developing children.  If the research does not show a clear benefit, why pile so much pressure onto our learners?

Giving students math homework that is beyond their level, or difficult for them to complete independently can increase levels of math anxiety .  Even high achieving students can suffer from math anxiety, which can lead to a lifelong avoidance of math.

What about remote learning and homework online?

The challenges of COVID and remote learning have caused researchers, teachers, and parents to look at homework differently.  The pandemic forced many of us to see (if not to address) the vast levels of access to basic internet service needed to make remote learning even approachable.  Online education is not equitable across the country, therefore doing homework online is just as inequitable. Sometimes teachers may not realize this inequity exists within their classrooms.  

I have worked in upper-middle-class areas where I assumed the students had access to high-speed internet at home.  The school required students to spend a particular amount of time per week on an online math program.  I was surprised to learn that the only source of the internet for some students was a parent’s phone.  

Another problem with online homework during pandemic learning is that the lines between “homework” and “schoolwork” have become blurry.   There is no clear definition for kid’s “homework,” adding more stress into their days.

So, is homework beneficial?

I suppose you are expecting a resounding “NO!” as an answer to this question.  Some research shows that homework can be beneficial to older students, meaning high school-age kids.  They could be given some homework, but not the three hours a night many high schoolers reports.  I can’t entirely agree with giving homework to students younger than high school.

There is one type of homework that is shown to have many benefits- reading for pleasure!  From critical thinking to growing empathy skills, reading for fun every night is one type of homework that is good for kids.

Should we give kids a big homework pass?

I am going to stand by my previous views on homework.  Yes, I think kids should all get a homework pass.  Let them play, engage in sports and yes, relax in front of the television at night with their families.  A healthy work-life balance is essential for the mental and physical health of our children.  The sheer amount of research showing the negative of homework versus the one study pointing at a precarious link between homework and test scores is not enough for me to throw my hat into the homework ring.

Hi, I'm Karen!

I help teachers like you motivate your students to love math, increase their creativity and their self confidence!  I live in Geneva, IL with my kids, Ellie and Liam, my dog Freida and my cats Rascal and Molly.

Grab your Guide to Gamification today!

Leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright 2021 | The Naturally Creative Classroom | All Rights Reserved

Is Homework Illegal AnyWhere?

• Post author By admin
• September 19, 2022

In this blog, you will learn about is homework illegal? so let’s get started.

Homework has become an important part since Horace Mann invented school. But many students have a query “is homework illegal?” – many students don’t want to do homework, and according to the research, this happens worldwide. 

Homework is time-consuming and stressful for students. That’s why students hate to do homework and want to know is it legal or illegal. We know that you are one of them that want to know is homework illegal or legal. For some reasons, you can say it is illegal or for some, it is legal. 

We will start with the illegal site. Many American elementary schools have banned homework because they find that homework can affect students’ health by causing stomach and headaches problems.

Many students suffer from sleep deprivation because they stay up late at night to complete their homework. It can be harmful to children’s learning skills because sleep has been shown to assist memory consolidation.

Table of Contents

Is Homework Illegal?

While the answer to the question “is homework illegal?” is “no, not yet,” our attitudes toward homework are changing, and the pandemic has caused us to reconsider children’s work-life balance. Some school districts and individual schools have begun to prohibit homework and limit the amount of homework that can be assigned to students. Some schools have said that homework is given out only 2-3 times per week, and others have outright banned homework for students under the age of 15. 

Why Homework Is Not Illegal

There are numerous disagreements over the effectiveness of homework. However, after years of debate and research, there is no solid proof that it helps students in achieving higher marks. While some kids dislike homework and perform better in school without it, others rely on it to gain a deeper understanding of certain subjects.

For example, many students gain a better understanding of mathematical ideas through repeated practice. As a result, making homework unlawful may disadvantage more students, skewing the outcomes in favour of children who are born with these skills.

The government recognises this and has not passed any legislation prohibiting schools from assigning homework. Law enforcement will not arrest a teacher for assigning homework to students. This blog is all about is homework illegal.

A short history of homework for you

There is no definitive answer to the question of when homework was invented and who invented homework .  Pliny the Younger from the Roman Empire, Roberto Nevilis from Italy in 1905, or Horace Mann can all be credited.  In one form or another, homework has almost certainly been around for a long time.  

One of the last two men is supposed to have introduced today’s concept of homework (after all, a woman would have known that there is PLENTY to do at home!). It was created as a punishment or as a way to show students that they can control their time.

As soon as homework was introduced, it was controversial.  In some states, homework bans were already in place at the turn of the 20th century.  The amount of homework given to kids increased as fears of the cold war grew and Americans were concerned about falling behind.  Later, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the anti-homework sentiment grew again, and students were given less homework. The country was experiencing an economic downturn when I entered the “workforce,” which means school.  Who else could be blamed but teachers?  There is a suggestion that the amount of homework given to kids should be increased by the Department of Education.

It has been reported that some high school students report having up to three hours of homework per night since then. This blog is all about is homework illegal.

Importance Of Homework

Improve memory

Whatever students learn in the classroom they can revise while doing homework. It can help them to improve their memory.

Students can learn to make good use of time

When students spend a lot of time completing their homework it helps them to keep away from useless activities such as spending more hours on phones, television or video games. 

Students can become independent

Many students do their homework on their own. They don’t get help from their teacher or friends. It makes them self-reliant and increases their confidence. 

Students learn responsibility

Many students understand that finishing homework is their responsibility. That’s why they do their homework every day.  It makes them responsible as a person.

Students learn to use many resources

When students do their homework they learn to use many resources such as libraries, the internet, etc. it helps them to find more information to complete their homework on time. 

Allow parents to involve in the studies of their child

When students do their homework it allows their parents to know what their child learns in school. And they can get involved with the child in their studies. 

Improves academic performance

Learning in the classroom isn’t enough to get good grades in school. Self-study is very important for achieving high grades.

Increases concentration

When students do their homework they find a peaceful place to study where they can concentrate more to complete their homework.

Why Should Students Have Homework?

One of the most important reasons a student has homework is that it allows professors to see where students are struggling with the course and assistance. 

At the same time, some students can work from the comfort of their own homes. It also allows teachers to get to know their students because some students are fast learners while others are slow learners.

Teachers can see where their students are lacking. The advantages of homework include teaching kids how to work as part of a group or collaborate effectively with others.

It can help the student in learning how to be self-sufficient. The schoolwork of their children is visible to their parents.

Kids should be assigned homework because there isn’t enough time at school, and some projects must be completed. Homework can increase a student’s self-esteem, but they can immediately identify their issues and get help before it’s too late if they struggle with it. 

One of the reasons professors assign homework is to encourage students to stay on track because failing behind might lead to failure. This blog is all about is homework illegal.

Is It Legal For Me To Do My Homework?

Legally, you are not required to do your homework. There is no law enforcement body that will arrest you for not doing your homework. A student who fails to complete his/her homework has the right to have it dealt with by the school.

The school may ask you to leave if you repeatedly ignore homework in schools where homework is part of the learning approach.  In some cases, parents who let their children ignore homework may attempt to get an exemption at the School Board, but in most cases, such requests still result in the child being asked to leave school.

If you refuse to do your homework, you aren’t breaking any federal or state laws, but you have no control over the actions your school will take. They have the legal authority to make whatever decision they deem appropriate. This blog is all about is homework illegal.

What States Have Illegal Homework Laws?

In all US states, homework is legal because there are no state laws prohibiting it. However, schools in different states are allowed to set their own rules about homework.

Some states ban or limit homework in some schools (or districts) including:

• Connecticut

20 Reasons Why Homework Should Be Banned

Here are 20 reasons why homework should be banned : 

• Homework Restricts A Student’s Freedom
• No Time For Exercises 
• No Time To Play Outdoor Games 
• Often Breaks Students’ Confidence
• Homework Doing Not An Achievement
• Most Homework Creates Bad Habits
• Less Time To Spend With Family Members
• Conflict With Parents
• Homework Can Encourage Cheating
• Downtime At Home
• Negative Impact On Tests
• Writing Has Different Effects
• Extra Challenges
• Homework Causes Depression
• Homework Provides No Real Benefit
• Too Much Homework Means Not Enough Time For Yourself
• School Is a Full-Time Job
• No real impact on performance
• Irrelevant content

Can Homework Be Considered Slavery?

There is no legal definition that would support the claim that homework is slavery. Even though home assignments are assigned without permission, comparing them to slavery is a ridiculous argument that cannot stand up to legal scrutiny.

If homework is considered slavery, you will need to prove that the teacher or instructor receives economic benefit from your work. However, teachers do not receive any economic benefit from assigning homework. Our sole goal is to help students apply what they’ve learned and become more comfortable with what they know.

Regardless of whether you believe the homework you’re assigned contributes to your career in any way, you can make your case to the appropriate authorities. This blog is all about is homework illegal.

What Is The Legal Homework Rights?

You can limit the amount of time your child spends on homework under the legal homework rights. It is possible to use the 504 law for these purposes, as it has multiple accommodations for children with impairment.

The term “impairment” is loosely defined under this law, which makes it a good legal tool when you’re seeking to accommodate a student’s various needs.

Having a child who has a diagnosis like Dyslexia or ADHD gives you a stronger case. Parents also have the right to exercise these rights with no diagnosis. This blog is all about is homework illegal.

How the 504 Process Works

Meetings with key stakeholders and paperwork are part of the 504 processes. These stakeholders include:

• The student
• A school administrator

They will pay attention and document all of your concerns during the meeting. An administrator or the child’s teacher must adhere to the record or document. On some occasions, the case goes to court before it is enforced but typically ends in the meeting room.

What Is The Optimal Amount Of Time To Spend On Homework Each Day?

There is no universally optimal amount of time to spend on homework per day. Most educators suggest using the 10-minute rule. To determine how much time your child should spend on homework, you should multiply 10 minutes by his/her grade level. 

That calculation indicates that a second grader should only have 20 minutes of homework per day, while students in 12th grade can have up to two hours of homework per day.

By using the legal homework rights, parents can get some concessions using the 10-minute rule. If a child has no homework in their academic life, it’s easier to request that the homework time be reduced (which will increase with each passing year). This blog is all about is homework illegal.

The Argument Against Homework

The following are some of the arguments used against homework:

• This encroaches on family and relaxation time. Students require some time every day to relax, play, connect with family members, get adequate sleep, and more. These activities are essential for a healthy balance between academics and personal life. When you have a lot of homework every day, you spend most of your relaxation time studying.
• There is a lot of pressure on students. When students know they still have homework to do, they feel an unnecessary amount of mental pressure. In the long run, consistent pressure could negatively affect a student’s performance at school.
• A child’s self-confidence can be affected by this. Poor homework results and poor results can make a student withdraw from other students and dread meetings with their teachers.
• Homework isn’t graded quickly (if at all). Teachers are often very busy dealing with different aspects of the academic process, so they glance at homework only briefly. In some cases, the students receive feedback long after the class has changed topics. Poorly graded homework defeats its purpose.

The Argument for Homework

• It allows parents and children to work together. The relationship between a child and a parent can be further improved by solving homework together. The parent can see how the child copes with schoolwork and address any concerns with the authorities.
• Students learn how to solve problems through this activity. In addition to learning to solve problems independently, children who complete their homework regularly will also gain valuable life skills. Students will be able to find information through books, the internet, and other sources on their own.
• It gives students insight into a teacher’s thought process. By doing their homework, students gain a deeper understanding of how teachers think, which can help them prepare for tests and exams. 
• It can help a child develop a higher sense of self-worth . When students receive high grades on their homework and complete their assignments they might feel more confident, which may lead to them becoming better students. 

Conclusion (Is Homework Illegal)

In this blog, we have discussed about is homework illegal. i hope you have understood about is homework illegal easily.

Homework is not illegal or slave labor. However, you can’t ignore the positive outcomes and the overall impact on a child’s academic foundation, regardless of the valid concerns about the impact on students. Furthermore, homework is not compulsory for students.

It is, however, up to the school to decide how to handle the student.

The school administrators can review your concerns about the amount of work your child has to do or about the relevance of the homework. This blog is all about is homework illegal.

FAQs Related To Is Homework Illegal?

Is it illegal to give homework.

Students are not required to do homework by law. While he does not prohibit schools from setting and enforcing rules and standards, he does provide schools with the tools to help ensure students receive a quality education. In other words, the school has the power to make you do your homework or face school-internal consequences.

Is there a legal limit to homework?

Homework assignments are not regulated by federal law, either. … A first-grader, for example, should not have to do more than ten minutes of homework (10 x 1), and a high school sophomore, a tenth-grader, should not have to do more than a hundred minutes of homework (10 x 10).

• australia (2)
• duolingo (13)
• Education (284)
• General (78)
• How To (18)
• IELTS (127)
• Latest Updates (162)
• Malta Visa (6)
• Permanent residency (1)
• Programming (31)
• Scholarship (1)
• Sponsored (4)
• Study Abroad (187)
• Technology (12)
• work permit (8)

Recent Posts

Get the Reddit app

A place to ask simple legal questions.

Is doing someone else’s homework illegal?

I’m a senior in high school and I’m getting paid 20 bucks by freshman’s to write their essays. Since I just turned 18 I’m wondering how that might look on the legal perspective

I live in New York

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

Homework violates the 13th Amendment

Fact-checking Trump's speech accepting the GOP nomination

Former President Donald Trump pitched a familiar worldview Thursday night: an administration that would stop wars, curb inflation and end illegal immigration.

But his third Republican National Convention speech — the longest nomination acceptance address in modern history, at 93 minutes — included a series of false claims on topics from taxes to crime to foreign policy.

Here's what Trump said in Milwaukee and the facts behind his claims.

Do Democrats want to ‘destroy’ Social Security and Medicare?

“I’m going to protect Social Security and Medicare. Democrats are going to destroy Social Security and Medicare," Trump said.

This is misleading.

Trump has  waffled on the issue for years , but now says he wouldn’t cut Social Security or Medicare. President Joe Biden advocated for cuts decades ago but has opposed them for more than 10 years. 

Before he ran for office, Trump called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” in 2000 and endorsed then-Rep. Paul Ryan’s plans to restructure Medicare in 2012. As a presidential candidate, he positioned himself as the protector of those programs in 2016, but he took aim at some retirement spending in his White House budgets (which never became law).

Biden has repeatedly pointed to an  interview with CNBC in March , when Trump said, “There’s a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting.” During this campaign, Trump has mostly insisted he wouldn’t cut Social Security and Medicare. After the CNBC interview, Trump sought to clean up his remarks, saying in an interview with the  conservative website Breitbart , “I will never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt Social Security or Medicare.” 

In the 1990s, Biden spoke about trying and failing repeatedly to cut government spending, including Social Security and Medicare. But he turned firmly against Social Security cuts more than a decade ago, as the Democratic Party moved toward supporting expanded retirement benefits. In the last week, Biden has embraced calls among progressives to back an expansion of Social Security benefits if he’s re-elected, although neither he nor the White House has offered specifics about that.

Is most of Trump’s pledged border wall built?

“I will end the illegal immigration crisis by closing our border and finishing the wall, most of which I have already built," Trump said.

Not according to Trump’s past promises.

A government report from 2023 found that the Trump administration installed about 458 miles of wall . The vast majority of that replaced existing structures —  estimates from 2021 pegged  the total new construction at just 47 miles of wall where none had existed before.

But even if that full 458-mile figure is what Trump is referring to, he had repeatedly promised during his 2016 presidential campaign that the wall would be  about 1,000 miles long .

Did Trump stop North Korean missile launches?

“We stopped the missile launches from North Korea,” Trump said.

This is false.

North Korea continued to launch short-range ballistic missiles during Trump’s tenure, even when the two countries held talks to try to negotiate a possible agreement that would have eased sanctions in return for North Korea’s curtailing its nuclear missile program.

Early in his administration, Trump warned North Korea not to threaten the U.S. or “they will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”

Was there peace abroad under Trump?

“I was the first president in modern times to start no new wars. ... Under President Bush, Russia invaded Georgia. Under President Obama, Russia took Crimea. Under the current administration, Russia is after all of Ukraine. Under President Trump, Russia took nothing," Trump said.

President Jimmy Carter didn’t declare war or seek any authorization of force. No U.S. troops died in hostile action during his administration, while at least 65 active-duty U.S. troops died in hostile action during the Trump administration.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which began in 2014 with the seizure of Crimea, continued under his presidency. Pro-Russian separatists backed by Moscow continued to wage war in eastern Ukraine against the government in Kyiv during Trump’s administration.

Is the crime rate going up in the U.S.?

“Our crime rate is going up while crime statistics all over the world are plunging,” Trump said.

This is misleading, according to the most comprehensive data.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said last month that the latest crime statistics showed  a significant drop in violent crime , an overall dip of 15.2%, in the first three months of 2024 compared to 2023 (with larger drops in murders, robberies, reported rapes and aggravated assaults).

Preliminary data shows the crime rate also  dropped significantly in 2023 , according to FBI data that covers law enforcement departments with jurisdiction over 82% of the American population.

There are limits to what the data can tell us, it’s incomplete, and not all crime is properly reported. But the indications we have don’t support the picture Trump is painting of crime in America.

As far as the crime rate’s “plunging” all over the world, there’s a lot of world. A 2023  United Nations report on homicide  found an increase from 2021 to 2022 and no evidence crime rates were falling in Africa but a decline in homicides in South America, significant decreases in Europe since 2017 and a relatively stagnant rate in Australia.

Is Biden planning to raise taxes ‘by four times’?

“This is the only administration that said we’re going to raise your taxes by four times what you’re paying now," Trump said.

This is false, according to Biden’s budget and campaign promises.

Trump has  made this claim  before. Biden’s fiscal year 2024 budget would raise the top individual income tax rate from 37% to 39.6%, and it called for a 25% minimum tax on the highest earners, according to the  Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget . There are also other taxes, including those on those making at least $400,000, but nothing in the budget would suggest people’s taxes would be raised by a factor of four.

Biden has  pledged not to raise taxes  on anyone making less than $400,000, and he hasn’t proposed anything on the campaign trail that would raise taxes that high for a broad cross-section of people.

Did Trump end ‘catch and release’?

“We ended all ‘catch and release,’” Trump said.

Trump didn’t end “catch and release,” the practice of releasing migrants into the country with court dates while they await court hearings. The U.S. doesn’t have enough facilities to detain every migrant who crosses the border until they can see judges, no matter who is president, so Trump — like Barack Obama before him and Biden after him — released many migrants back into the U.S.

Did Democrats ‘use Covid to cheat’ in the 2020 election?

“The election result, we’re never going to let it happen again. They used Covid to cheat," Trump said.

Trump is referring to changes made during the Covid pandemic, largely to make it easier to vote by mail or absentee, as congregating at the polls posed a health risk. Democrats embraced the changes and turned out many voters by mail, while Trump slammed mail voting. There is no evidence the changes led to fraud, even though Trump and his allies filed  more than 50 lawsuits  challenging some facet of the 2020 election. All were denied, dismissed, settled or withdrawn, including  multiple that made  it to the  Supreme Court .

Are groceries 50% more expensive under Biden?

“It’s not affordable; people can’t live like this. Under this administration, our current administration, groceries are up 57%, gasoline is up 60 and 70%, mortgage rates have quadrupled,” Trump said.

This is exaggerated.

Some grocery items  have had huge price hikes, but overall grocery prices have risen 21% during the Biden administration. Gasoline prices are up 58% under Biden, while mortgage rates have more than doubled, not quadrupled.

Did Trump sign the biggest tax cut ever?

“We gave you the largest tax cut ever," Trump said.

The GOP-sponsored tax bill that Trump signed into law in December 2017 doesn’t amount to the “biggest” in U.S. history, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. According to its estimates, the tax cut  is the eighth biggest in history .

Does immigration spread disease?

“We also have an illegal immigration crisis, and it’s taking place right now as we sit here in this beautiful arena, some massive invasion at our southern border that has spread misery, crime, poverty, disease and destruction to communities all across our land," Trump said.

Studies have found that migrants don’t spread disease. Instead, many help fight it, as migrants make up a significant proportion of health care workers.

A 2018 study in the  Journal of the American Medical Association  found that 16% of health care workers in the U.S. were born somewhere else, including 29% of physicians, 16% of registered nurses, 20% of pharmacists, 24% of dentists and 23% of nursing, psychiatric and home health aides.

“There is no evidence to show that migrants are spreading disease,” Dr. Paul Spiegel, who directs the Center for Humanitarian Health at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, said in 2018. “That is a false argument that is used to keep migrants out.”

Jane C. Timm is a senior reporter for NBC News.

Ben Kamisar is a national political reporter for NBC News

Advertisement

Supported by

What It Would Take to Deport Millions of Immigrants

Donald Trump is calling for the biggest deportation program in American history. The costs and hurdles would be enormous.

• Share full article

By Miriam Jordan

Miriam Jordan covers immigration for The Times.

When Donald Trump ran for president in 2016, he vowed to build a wall to seal the border and keep criminals from entering the country. This campaign season, his immigration agenda has a new focus: a mass deportation program unlike anything the country has seen.

His party’s platform, ratified at the Republican convention in Milwaukee, promises the “largest deportation effort in American history,” and immigration was the theme of Tuesday’s gathering.

What would it take to deport millions of people? Is it even possible?

How many undocumented immigrants are in the country?

There were 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States in 2022, according to the latest government estimates, and more than eight out of 10 have been in the country for more than a decade. Mr. Trump said during the debate last month that there were 18 million, which is unsubstantiated.

Fleeing political and economic turmoil, migrants from countries like Venezuela have crossed the border in record numbers during the Biden administration.

Who would be targeted for deportation, and how easy would it be to remove them?

Mr. Trump and the Republican platform have made broad declarations but thus far offered scant details about their intended operation.

The former president has suggested that any undocumented immigrant is subject to removal.

The party platform states that “the most dangerous criminals” would be prioritized.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• Environment
• Science & Technology
• Business & Industry
• Health & Public Welfare
• Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)
• Public Inspection
• Presidential Documents
• Document Search
• Advanced Document Search
• Public Inspection Search
• Reader Aids Home
• Office of the Federal Register Announcements
• Using FederalRegister.Gov
• Understanding the Federal Register
• Recent Site Updates
• Federal Register & CFR Statistics
• Videos & Tutorials
• Developer Resources
• Government Policy and OFR Procedures
• Congressional Review
• My Clipboard
• My Comments
• My Subscriptions
• Sign In / Sign Up
• Site Feedback
• Search the Federal Register

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government.

• Legal Status

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Proposed Rule

Program integrity and institutional quality: distance education, return of title iv, hea funds, and federal trio programs.

A Proposed Rule by the Education Department on 07/24/2024

This document has a comment period that ends in 28 days. (08/23/2024) Submit a formal comment

Thank you for taking the time to create a comment. Your input is important.

Once you have filled in the required fields below you can preview and/or submit your comment to the Education Department for review. All comments are considered public and will be posted online once the Education Department has reviewed them.

You can view alternative ways to comment or you may also comment via Regulations.gov at https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/ED-2024-OPE-0050-0001 .

• What is your comment about?

Note: You can attach your comment as a file and/or attach supporting documents to your comment. Attachment Requirements .

this will NOT be posted on regulations.gov

• Opt to receive email confirmation of submission and tracking number?
• Tell us about yourself! I am... *
• First Name *
• Last Name *
• State Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
• Country Afghanistan Åland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine, State of Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Réunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
• Organization Type * Company Organization Federal State Local Tribal Regional Foreign U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate
• Organization Name *
• You are filing a document into an official docket. Any personal information included in your comment text and/or uploaded attachment(s) may be publicly viewable on the web.
• I read and understand the statement above.
• Preview Comment

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register .

Document Statistics

Enhanced content.

Relevant information about this document from Regulations.gov provides additional context. This information is not part of the official Federal Register document.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Enhanced Content - Table of Contents

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Supplementary information:, table of contents, i. abbreviations, ii. executive summary, iii. summary of the major provisions, distance education (§§ 600.2, 668.3, 668.41), return of title iv funds (§§ 668.21, 668.22), federal trio programs (§§ 643.3, 644.3, 645.3), costs and benefits, iv. invitation to comment, clarity of the regulations, v. authority for this regulatory action, vi. background, vii. public participation, viii. negotiated rulemaking, ix. significant proposed regulations, a. distance education, definitions (§ 600.2), academic year (§ 668.3), reporting and disclosure of information (§ 668.41), b. return of title iv funds, treatment of title iv grant and loan funds if the recipient does not begin attendance at the institution (§ 668.21), treatment of title iv funds when a student withdraws (§ 668.22), c. federal trio programs, who is eligible to participate in a talent search project (§ 643.3), who is eligible to participate in an educational opportunity centers project (§ 644.3), who is eligible to participate in an upward bound project (§ 645.3), x. regulatory impact analysis, executive orders 12866, 13563, and 14094, regulatory impact analysis, 1. need for regulatory action, distance education, final demand letter, withdrawal exemption, last date of attendance, attendance taking and distance education, leave of absence, clock-hour programs, r2t4 and modules, federal trio programs, 2. summary start printed page 60271, 3. discussion of costs, benefits, and transfers, 3.a. establishing a baseline, 3.a.1. number of affected entities, 3.a.2. wage rates, 3.a.3. other information, 3.b. costs of the proposed regulations, distance education—reporting and disclosure of information, distance education—definition of clock-hour program, return of title iv funds when student does not begin attendance, return of title iv funds when student withdraws, federal trio programs—talent search (ts), educational opportunity centers (eoc), upward bound (ub) participant eligibility, 3.c. benefits of the proposed regulations, 3.c.1. monetized benefits, federal trio programs (ts, eoc, ub) expanded eligibility, 3.c.2 non-monetized benefits, benefits to students, benefits to institutions, benefits to the taxpayer, 4. accounting statement, 5. alternatives considered, 5.1 distance education, confined or incarcerated individuals and r2t4, direct assessment programs and r2t4, withdrawal exemptions and r2t4, expanding the eligibility proposal to all trio programs, not regulating trio, 6. regulatory flexibility act, description of the reasons for agency action, succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the regulations, description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the regulations, including of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record, identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant federal regulations that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the regulations, alternatives considered, paperwork reduction act of 1995, intergovernmental review, assessment of education impact, list of subjects, 34 cfr part 600, 34 cfr parts 643 and 644, 34 cfr part 645, 34 cfr part 668, part 600—institutional eligibility under the higher education act of 1965, as amended, part 643—talent search, part 644—educational opportunity centers, part 645—upward bound program, part 668—student assistance general provisions, enhanced content - submit public comment.

• Submit a public comment on this document

Enhanced Content - Read Public Comments

3 comments have been received at regulations.gov, across 1 docket.

Agencies review all submissions and may choose to redact, or withhold, certain submissions (or portions thereof). Submitted comments may not be available to be read until the agency has approved them.

Enhanced Content - Sharing

• Email this document to a friend

Enhanced Content - Document Print View

• Print this document

Enhanced Content - Document Tools

These tools are designed to help you understand the official document better and aid in comparing the online edition to the print edition.

These markup elements allow the user to see how the document follows the Document Drafting Handbook that agencies use to create their documents. These can be useful for better understanding how a document is structured but are not part of the published document itself.

Enhanced Content - Developer Tools

This document is available in the following developer friendly formats:.

• JSON: Normalized attributes and metadata
• XML: Original full text XML
• MODS: Government Publishing Office metadata

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

Official Content

• View printed version (PDF)

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 07/23/2024 at 8:45 am. It was viewed 0 times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

The Secretary is proposing to amend the Student Assistance General Provisions regulations governing participation in the student financial assistance programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), to promote program integrity and institutional quality. These regulations would clarify, update, and consolidate certain provisions that apply to distance education; the return of title IV, HEA funds; and the Federal TRIO programs. A brief summary of the proposed rule is available at www.regulations.gov/​docket/​ED-2024-OPE-0050 .

We must receive your comments on or before August 23, 2024.

Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at regulations.gov. Information on using Regulations.gov , including instructions for finding a rule on the site and submitting comments, is available on the site under “FAQ.” If you require an accommodation or cannot otherwise submit your comments via regulations.gov, please contact one of the program contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The Department will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or comments submitted after the comment period closes. To ensure that the Department does not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comment only once. Additionally, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to generally make comments received from members of the public available for public viewing at https://www.regulations.gov . Therefore, commenters should include in their comments only information about themselves that they wish to make publicly available. Commenters should not include in their comments any information that identifies other individuals or that permits readers to identify other individuals. If, for example, your comment describes an experience of someone other than yourself, please do not identify that individual or include information that would facilitate readers identifying that individual. The Department reserves the right to redact at any time any information in comments that identifies other individuals, includes information that would facilitate readers identifying other individuals, or includes threats of harm to another person.

Gregory Martin, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 5th floor, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 205-4595. Email: [email protected] .

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

III. Summary of Major Provisions

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

CIP Code: Classification of Instructional Programs code

EOC: Educational Opportunity Centers

FFEL: Federal Family Education Loan program

FSA: Federal Student Aid

Freely Associated States: the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands

HEA: Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended

HHS: the United States Department of Health and Human Services

LEA: Local educational agency

PEP: Eligible prison education program

PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

R2T4: Return of title IV funds

RIA: Regulatory Impact Analysis

SEA: State educational agency

Title IV, HEA Programs: Student financial assistance programs authorized under title IV of the HEA

TRIO: Federal outreach and student services programs designed to identify and provide services for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds

TS: Talent Search

UB: Upward Bound

These proposed regulations address three substantive areas: distance education, return of title IV funds (R2T4), and the Federal TRIO programs (TRIO). The Department is addressing these areas in an effort to help ensure students are well served by the institutions of higher education they attend, increase access to postsecondary education for disadvantaged students, and ensure that Federal Student Aid programs work in the best interests of students. As the three distinct topics are structured and addressed independently in this proposed rule, the Department generally intends the rule's provisions to be severable from each other. The Department expects to provide additional detail on severability in the final rule once we consider public comments and finalize the regulatory language.

The proposed distance education regulations would help the Department better measure and account for student outcomes, improve oversight over distance education, and ensure students are receiving effective education by expanding the definition of an additional location to include virtual locations for programs offered entirely online or through correspondence, adding a definition of “distance education course,” requiring institutions to report their students' distance education status, and disallowing asynchronous distance education in clock-hour programs for title IV, HEA purposes. The proposed R2T4 regulations would help withdrawn students repay outstanding Direct Loan credit balances, increase the accuracy and simplicity of performing R2T4 calculations, address unique circumstances for what constitutes a withdrawal, clarify that distance education programs are attendance taking, and codify longstanding policies into regulation. The proposed changes to TRIO would expand student eligibility and provide greater access to postsecondary education for disadvantaged students under three programs that offer student services in a pre-postsecondary education setting—the Talent Search program, the Educational Opportunity Centers program, and the Upward Bound program by expanding participant eligibility to include all students who have enrolled in or who seek to enroll in a high school in the United States, territories, or Freely Associated States. Start Printed Page 60257

As specifically set forth in each of the areas identified below, the proposed regulations would:

• Amend § 600.2 to: (1) include in the definition of additional location virtual locations where 100 percent of an educational program is provided through distance education or correspondence courses; (2) revise the definition of clock hour to reflect that, for title IV, HEA purposes, coursework delivered via distance education cannot be asynchronous; and (3) add a definition for distance education course.
• Amend the academic year definition in § 668.3 to specify that, for purposes of the title IV, HEA definition of an academic year, asynchronous coursework offered through distance education could only be offered in credit-hour programs.
• Amend § 668.41 to require institutions to report student enrollment in distance education or correspondence courses, using a procedure that would be determined by the Department.
• Amend § 668.21 to allow a student who received a loan disbursement as part of a title IV credit balance, but never began attendance in a payment period or period of enrollment, to repay loan funds they received under the terms of their promissory note.
• Amend § 668.22 to exempt institutions from performing an R2T4 calculation in the event that (1) a student is treated as never having begun attendance; (2) the institution returns all title IV aid disbursed to the student for that payment period or period of enrollment; (3) the institution refunds all institutional charges to the student for that payment period or period of enrollment; and (4) the institution writes off or cancels any current year balance owed by the student to the institution due to the institution's return of title IV funds to the Department.
• Amend § 668.22 to codify that an institution that is required to take attendance must, within 14 days of a student's last date of attendance, document the student's withdrawal date.
• Amend § 668.22 to require an institution to take attendance for each course offered entirely through distance education, except for dissertation research courses that are part of a doctoral program.
• Amend § 668.22 to allow a confined or incarcerated individual, in a term-based setting, to not have to come back from a leave of absence to where the student left off, and instead, allow the individual to return at a different point in their prison education program (PEP).
• Amend § 668.22 to streamline and make consistent institutions' calculation of the percentage of the payment period completed for a clock-hour program.
• Amend § 668.22 to consider a module part of the payment period used in the denominator of the R2T4 calculation only when a student begins attendance in the module.
• Amend § 643.3 to expand who would be able to participate in a Talent Search project. Eligibility would be extended to an individual who is enrolled in or seeks to enroll in a high school in the United States, territories, or Freely Associated States.
• Amend § 644.3 to expand who would be able to participate in an Educational Opportunity Centers project. Eligibility would be extended to an individual who is enrolled in or seeks to enroll in a high school in the United States, territories, or Freely Associated States.
• Amend § 645.3 to expand who would be able to participate in a Regular or a Math and Science Upward Bound project. Eligibility (other than for direct cash stipends) would be extended to an individual who is enrolled in or seeks to enroll in a high school in the United States, territories, or Freely Associated States.

As further detailed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, the Department estimates present value net benefits of $1,434,537,761 over ten years at a 2 percent discount rate. This is equivalent to an annualized net benefits of $159,702,107 over ten years. Additionally, we estimate annualized quantified costs of $9,423,657 related to paperwork burden.

We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to clearly identify the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order as the proposed regulations. The Department will not accept comments submitted after the comment period closes. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once.

The following tips are meant to help you prepare your comments and provide a basis for the Department to respond to issues raised in your comments in the notice of final regulations (NFR):

• Be concise but support your claims.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible and avoid using profanity.
• Refer to specific sections and paragraphs of the proposed regulations throughout your comments, particularly in any headings that are used to organize your submission.
• Explain why you agree or disagree with the proposed regulatory text and support these reasons with data-driven evidence, including the depth and breadth of your personal or professional experiences.
• Where you disagree with the proposed regulatory text, suggest alternatives, including regulatory language, and your rationale for the alternative suggestion.
• Do not include personally identifiable information (PII), such as Social Security numbers or loan account numbers, for yourself or for others in your submission. Should you include any PII in your comment, such information may be posted publicly.

Mass Writing Campaigns: In instances where individual submissions appear to be duplicates or near duplicates of comments prepared as part of a writing campaign, the Department will post one representative sample comment along with the total comment count for that campaign to Regulations.gov . The Department will consider these comments along with all other comments received.

In instances where individual submissions are bundled together (submitted as a single document or packaged together), the Department will post all of the substantive comments included in the submissions along with the total comment count for that document or package to Regulations.gov . A well-supported comment is often more informative to the agency than multiple form letters.

Public Comments: The Department invites you to submit comments on all aspects of the proposed regulatory language specified in this NPRM in §§ 600.2, 643.3, 644.3, 645.3, 668.3, 668.21, 668.22, and 668.41, and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis and Paperwork Reduction Act sections.

The Department may, at its discretion, decide not to post or to withdraw certain comments and other materials that are computer-generated. Comments containing the promotion of commercial Start Printed Page 60258 services or products and spam will be removed.

We may not address comments outside of the scope of these proposed regulations in the NFR. Generally, comments that are outside of the scope of these proposed regulations are comments that do not discuss the content or impact of the proposed regulations or the Department's evidence or reasons for the proposed regulations, which includes topics negotiated but not included in this NPRM.

Comments that are submitted after the comment period closes will not be posted to Regulations.gov or addressed in the NFR.

Comments containing personal threats will not be posted to Regulations.gov and may be referred to the appropriate authorities.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed regulations. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the Department's programs and activities.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect public comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov .

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact one of the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. The Secretary invites comments on how to make the regulation easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:

• Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated?
• Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?
• Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) aid or reduce its clarity?
• Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” is preceded by the symbol “§ ” and a numbered heading; for example, § 668.2 General definitions.)
• Could the description of the proposed regulations in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
• What else could we do to make the proposed regulation easier to understand?

To send any comments that concern how the Department could make these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions in the ADDRESSES section.

The legal basis for these proposed regulations is title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), which authorizes the Federal government's major student financial aid programs that are the primary source of direct Federal support to students pursuing postsecondary education. 20 U.S.C. 1070-1099d (sections 400-499 of the HEA). Institutions participating in title IV programs must satisfy certain threshold and ongoing requirements, see id., and the Secretary is given broad authority to carry out program requirements. 20 U.S.C. 1070(b) (section 400(b) of the HEA). As part of its oversight responsibilities under title IV, the Department seeks to promote program integrity and institutional quality. See generally 20 U.S.C. 1099c , 1099c-1 , 1099c-2 (sections 498, 498A, and 498B of the HEA). To this end, the Department's student assistance general provisions regulations establish threshold requirements for institutions to participate and to continue participation in student financial assistance programs. See generally 34 CFR parts 600-603 , 642-647 , 668 , 673-676 , 682-694 . This proposed rule would update, consolidate, and revise requirements in three distinct title IV areas: the return of title IV, HEA funds; distance education; and the Federal TRIO programs, impacting 34 CFR parts 600 , 643-645 , and 668 . The Department's specific legal authority to propose regulations in these areas is set forth below.

Distance Education. Section 103(7) of the HEA defines “distance education,” and section 484(l) sets forth rules relating to courses offered through distance education. Among other things, section 103(7) requires that distance education support regular and substantive interaction between students and the instructor, and the modifications we propose in this NPRM would give the Department the tools to ensure such programs satisfy this requirement.

Return of Title IV, HEA Funds. Section 484B of the HEA outlines the process that an institution must follow if a title IV aid recipient withdraws from the institution during a payment period or period of enrollment (also known as R2T4). The Department proposes various clarifying changes to the R2T4 regulations that would benefit both institutions and students.

Federal TRIO Programs. Section 402A of the HEA outlines the application process, permissible services, awarding process, and grant limitations for TRIO. This proposed rule would clarify the scope of qualified individuals who are eligible to participate in certain TRIO programs.

The definition of “distance education” in § 600.2 lists the technologies that allow for instruction to occur between instructors and students who are separated. It also requires that such education must include regular and substantive interaction between the two parties and explains what such interaction must entail. With the development of the technology that supports distance learning and particularly in the wake of the pandemic, the Department observed that the use of distance education at eligible institutions has increased and is likely to continue to do so. However, as the Department noted in the distance education issue paper and during the negotiated rulemaking on this issue, we have been hampered in the ability to fully understand students' participation in distance education, account for differences in outcomes and conduct oversight, accurately measure taxpayer expenditures on distance education programs, and gauge the success of such education. [ 1 ] The proposed changes will assist the Department with these issues.

The other distance education issue the Department seeks to address with this rulemaking involves clock-hour programs, which traditionally have required considerable hands-on Start Printed Page 60259 instruction to properly prepare students for employment in their field of study. In the September 2, 2020, final rule on distance education, the Department was persuaded that allowing for asynchronous instruction in clock-hour programs was sensible as long as it was adequately tracked through appropriate technology ( 85 FR 54742 ). [ 2 ] However, after additional review of the issue during its oversight and compliance activities, and based on complaints received from students, the Department believes this expansion puts students and taxpayers at risk. Consequently, the Department is proposing to eliminate asynchronous instruction for clock-hour programs.

The R2T4 regulations govern the process institutions must conduct when a title IV recipient ceases attendance during a payment period (term) or a period of enrollment. Title IV funds are awarded to a student under the assumption that the student will attend school for the entire period for which the funds were awarded. When a student withdraws, they may no longer be eligible for the full amount of title IV funds that they were originally scheduled to receive and that the institution disbursed. After an institution completes an R2T4 calculation, funds that were awarded to the student may need to be returned to the Department.

R2T4 is consistently in the Department's top 10 compliance findings for schools and yields complex and challenging questions. The Department proposed the regulatory changes in this section to address some of the issues in the regulations that have been identified in these findings. [ 3 ] Through these proposed R2T4 regulations, the Department seeks to: (1) help withdrawn students repay outstanding Direct Loan credit balances; (2) increase the accuracy and simplicity of performing R2T4 calculations; (3) address unique circumstances for what constitutes a withdrawal; and (4) codify longstanding policies into regulation.

The TRIO programs are Federal outreach and student services programs designed to identify and provide services for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. Individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds include low-income individuals, first-generation college students, students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, students experiencing homelessness, and students in foster care. The TRIO programs are designed to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds progress through the academic pipeline from middle school to postbaccalaureate programs.

Current regulations limit TRIO programs to an individual that is a citizen or national of the United States, a permanent resident of the United States, a permanent resident of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Palau), or a resident of the Freely Associated States (the Federated States of Micronesia or the Republic of the Marshall Islands). See §§ 643.3(a)(1)(i) through (v), 644.3(a)(1)(i) through (v), and 645.3(a)(1) through (5). An individual is also currently eligible to participate in the TRIO programs if they are in the United States for other than a temporary purpose and provide evidence from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (currently Department of Homeland Security) of his or her intent to become a permanent resident ( i.e., conditional resident aliens, conditional entrants, self-petitioners under the Violence Against Women Act (battered immigrants), refugees, asylees, victims of human trafficking, Cuban-Haitian entrants, persons paroled into the U.S. for at least one year and Jay Treaty students).

The Department's proposed changes would impact the three TRIO programs that serve students in a pre-postsecondary education context: the Upward Bound program, the Talent Search program, and the Educational Opportunity Centers program. The Upward Bound program prepares high school students for college while the Talent Search program encourages participants to complete secondary and postsecondary education. The Educational Opportunity Centers program provides financial and academic counseling to qualified individuals, generally over the age of 19, though individuals under 19 are eligible to receive program services if they meet the requirements of current 34 CFR 644.3(a)(2)(ii) , who want to enter or continue a postsecondary education program. The Department proposes to broaden participation in these three programs by expanding eligibility to all disadvantaged individuals who have enrolled in or who seek to enroll in a high school in the United States, territories, or Freely Associated States, which are the geographic areas served by the TRIO programs. This proposal would allow the three TRIO programs that serve students in the pre-postsecondary education context to serve students who are already receiving or seek to receive public educational services from middle and high schools.

The McNair Scholars program, the Student Support Services program and the Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs would not be impacted by these proposed changes. The Department proposes to limit this eligibility expansion to the three TRIO programs that serve students in the pre-postsecondary context, because the Department believes that all who attend high school in the United States should have the same access to TRIO services. The TRIO provisions would additionally eliminate the operational burden of separating out students who are enrolled in public schools but not eligible for TRIO services under the current rule, enabling a greater focus on delivering educational services to all students. The proposed rule change would assist students on their path to and attainment of postsecondary education.

The Department has significantly engaged the public in developing this NPRM, as described here and below in the Negotiated Rulemaking section.

On March 24, 2023, The Department announced public hearings at which interested parties could comment on the topics suggested by the Department or suggest additional topics for consideration. [ 4 ] The Department conducted virtual public hearings on April 11 and 12, 2023. The Department considered the advice and recommendations submitted by individuals and organizations in these public hearings in developing initial proposed regulatory provisions for consideration by the Program Integrity and Institutional Quality Committee (Committee). You may view transcripts of the public hearings at https://www2.ed.gov/​policy/​highered/​reg/​hearulemaking/​2023/​index.html .

The Department also accepted written comments on possible regulatory provisions that were submitted to the Department by interested parties and organizations as part of the public hearing process. You may view the written comments submitted in response to the March 23, 2023, Federal Register notice on the Federal Start Printed Page 60260 eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov , within docket ID ED-2023-OPE-0039. Instructions for finding comments are also available on the site under “FAQ.”

On November 29, 2023, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register ( 88 FR 83365 ) announcing the intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to prepare proposed regulations on: (1) The Secretary's recognition of accrediting agencies under 34 CFR part 602 and related parts; (2) Institutional eligibility under 34 CFR 600.2 , including State authorization as a component of such eligibility under 34 CFR 600.9; (3) The requirements for distance education under 34 CFR 600.2 that pertain to clock-hour programs and reporting for students who enroll primarily online; (4) Return of Title IV funds, to address requirements for participating institutions to return unearned title IV funds in a manner that protects students and taxpayers while easing the administrative burden for institutions of higher education under 34 CFR 668.22; (5) Cash management, to address timely student access to disbursements of title IV, HEA Federal student financial assistance and provisions related to credit balances, escheatment, and loss of such funds under 34 CFR part 668, subpart K ; and (6) The eligibility requirements for participants in TRIO.

Section 492 of the HEA requires the Secretary to obtain public involvement in the development of proposed regulations affecting programs authorized by title IV of the HEA. After obtaining extensive input and recommendations from the public, including individuals and representatives of groups involved in the title IV, HEA programs, the Department, in most cases, must engage in the negotiated rulemaking process before publishing proposed regulations in the Federal Register . If negotiators reach consensus on the proposed regulations, the Department agrees to publish without substantive alteration a defined group of proposed regulations on which the negotiators reached consensus—unless the Secretary reopens the process or provides a written explanation to the participants stating why the Secretary has decided to depart from the agreement reached during negotiations. You can find further information on the negotiated rulemaking process at: www2.ed.gov/​policy/​highered/​reg/​hearulemaking/​2023/​index.html .

On November 29, 2023, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register ( 88 FR 83365 ) announcing its intention to establish a Committee, the Program Integrity and Institutional Quality Committee, to prepare proposed regulations for the title IV, HEA programs. The notice set forth a schedule for Committee meetings, requested nominations for individual negotiators to serve on the negotiating Committee, and announced the topics that Committee would address.

The Committee included the following members, representing their respective constituencies:

• Business Officers from Institutions of Higher Education: Joe Weglarz, Marist College, and Dom Chase (alternate), Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana.
• Civil Rights Organizations and Consumer Advocates: Carolyn Fast, The Century Foundation, and Magin Misael Sanchez (alternate), UnidosUS.
• Financial Aid Administrators: JoEllen Price, San Jacinto College, and Zack Goodwin (alternate), University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and Minority-serving Institutions (institutions of higher education eligible to receive Federal assistance under title III, parts A and F, and title V of the HEA): Charles B. W. Prince, Dillard University, and D'Angelo Sands (alternate), Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi.
• Institutional Accrediting Agencies Recognized by the Secretary: Jamienne S. Studley, WASC Senior College and University Commission, and Michale McComis (alternate), Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges.
• Legal Assistance Organizations: Robyn Smith, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles and National Consumer Law Center, and Sophie Laing (alternate), Pine Tree Legal Assistance.
• Private Nonprofit Institutions of Higher Education: Erika Linden, Des Moines University, and Scott Dolan (alternate), Excelsior University.
• Programmatic accrediting agencies recognized by the Secretary, to include State agencies recognized for the approval of nurse education: Laura Rasar King, Council on Education for Public Health, and Amy Ackerson (alternate), Missouri State Board of Nursing.
• Proprietary Institutions of Higher Education: Jillian Klein, Strategic Education, Inc., and David Cohen (alternate), Five Towns College and APC Board of Directors.
• Public Four-Year Institutions of Higher Education: Jason Lorgan, University of California, Davis, and Alyssa Dobson (alternate), Slippery Rock University.
• Public Two-Year Institutions of Higher Education: Jo Alice Blondin, Clark State College, and Michael Cioce (alternate), Rowan College at Burlington County.
• State Attorneys General: Diana Hooley, Massachusetts Attorney General's Office.
• State Officials, including State higher education executive officers, State authorizing agencies, and State regulators of institutions of higher education: John Ware, Ohio State Board of Career Colleges and Schools, and Robert Anderson (alternate), State Higher Education Executive Officers Association.
• Students or borrowers, including currently enrolled borrowers, or groups representing them: Jessica Morales, American University—Washington School of Law, and Emmett Blaney (alternate), Young Invincibles.
• U.S. military service members, veterans, or groups representing them: Barmak Nassirian, Veterans Education Success, and Ashlynne Haycock-Lohmann (alternate), Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors.
• Federal Negotiator: Gregory Martin, U.S. Department of Education.

The Department also invited nominations for a Federal TRIO Programs Subcommittee (Subcommittee). The Subcommittee members were not voting members of the Committee unless otherwise designated to represent a constituency; however, they provided a recommendation for TRIO and served as a resource to the Committee. The Subcommittee members were:

• Current or former participants in a Federal TRIO Program: Wade Williams, Crowder College Foundations.
• Institutions of Higher Education: D'Angelo Sands, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi.
• Public or private agencies or organizations, including community-based organizations with experience in serving disadvantaged youth: Emalyn Lapus, Japanese Community Youth Council.
• Secondary schools, including local educational agencies with secondary schools: Geof Garner, Multnomah Education Service District.
• State Officials, including State Higher Education Executive Officers, State Authorizing Agencies, and State Regulators of Institutions of Higher Education: Michael P. Meotti, Start Printed Page 60261 Washington Student Achievement Council.
• U.S. Department of Education: Aaron Washington, Office of Postsecondary Education, and Hannah Hodel, Office of General Counsel.

The Committee met for three rounds of negotiations, each of which was held over four days between January and March 2024. The Subcommittee met on January 12 and February 9. At its first meeting, the Committee reached agreement on its protocols and proposed agenda. The protocols provided, among other things, that the Committee would operate by consensus. The protocols defined consensus as no dissent by any member of the Committee and noted that consensus checks would be taken issue by issue.

The Committee reviewed and discussed the Department's drafts of regulatory language, as well as alternative language and suggestions proposed by Committee members. During each negotiated rulemaking session, provided opportunities for public comment at the end of each day. Additionally, during and between each negotiated rulemaking session, non-Federal negotiators obtained feedback from their stakeholders that they shared with the negotiating committee.

At the meeting on March 4, 2024, the Committee reached consensus on the Department's proposed regulations on TRIO. The Department has published the proposed TRIO amendatory language in this NPRM without substantive alteration to the agreed-upon proposed regulations. The Committee did not reach consensus on the other issues considered.

For more information on the negotiated rulemaking sessions please visit www2.ed.gov/​policy/​highered/​reg/​hearulemaking/​2023/​index.html .

We discuss substantive issues under the sections of the proposed regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address proposed regulatory provisions that are technical or otherwise minor in effect.

Current Regulations: The current definition of additional location in § 600.2 includes two categories: the traditional physical facilities that are geographically separate from the main campus of the institution and correctional institutions where students receive postsecondary educational instruction.

Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes to add a third category to this definition: virtual locations, through which institutions offer 100 percent of an educational program by distance education or correspondence courses, notwithstanding mandatory on-campus or residential periods of 90 days or less.

Reasons: Under the current regulations and Department processes, there is no distinction between an institution's on-campus programs and programs offered entirely online or in a hybrid format. For example, institutions may have online programs related to on-campus programs with the same Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code, sometimes with a different curriculum. If they have the same CIP code, however, the Department is unable to distinguish between the two programs for many purposes including program oversight, audits, looking at outcome metrics, and College Scorecard program-level data, including debt, earnings, and completion. The Department is also unable to determine the precise amount of title IV funds being expended in distance education programs or determine the State where the student is located while enrolled.

Establishing a virtual location as a type of additional location would distinguish programs offered entirely through distance education from those that occur fully or partially at a physical facility of the school or at a correctional institution. The proposed changes would help the Department measure and better understand student outcomes and the amount of title IV program funds being expended in each setting and conduct more accurate program oversight including through better tailored program reviews. The proposed changes would also improve the Department's ability to determine the States where title IV, HEA recipients are located and allow the Department to provide this information to State oversight entities and the public. This additional information would improve the ability of State oversight entities to oversee distance education programs and better assess the risk that such programs may pose to individuals residing in their States.

In addition, having distinct virtual locations would allow the Department to account for situations in which an institution ends its online offerings irrespective of what is occurring at a school's brick-and-mortar campus or if an institution ended its brick-and-mortar offerings but continued its online offerings. This would allow the Department to monitor an institution's compliance with close-out requirements, consistent with the monitoring done for closures of brick-and-mortar institutions and locations. Separately identifying virtual locations would also provide greater protection for students if an institution offering both distance education and in-person instruction suspends coursework in one modality but maintains the other. Students whose modality has been discontinued and who may not wish to, or may not be able to, continue in the alternative modality, would be eligible for closed school discharges. For example, students that enrolled in an on-campus program may have done so with the expectation that they would be instructed in person, and they may not have otherwise chosen an online program. Similarly, a student who enrolled in an online program may not be inclined or able to move into an on-campus program for a number of reasons, such as preference for a flexible schedule, not living near the physical campus, or a preference for online instruction. This regulatory change will provide a clear mechanism for providing relief.

Although the definition of a virtual location refers primarily to programs offered entirely through distance education, the Department proposes to include in the definition an exception for programs that have limited requirements for students to attend on campus activities, including preparation activities and residential periods of instruction of 90 days or less. These exceptions are intended to prevent institutions from circumventing the requirement to report an additional location by requiring a minimal amount of on-campus or residential activities.

The Department notes that the proposed concept of a virtual additional location would not require additional oversight by States or accrediting agencies; instead, the Department would approve an institution's virtual locations if its oversight entities approved or authorized the institution to offer distance education.

Current Regulations: The current definition of clock hour in § 600.2 allows for distance education in which a synchronous or asynchronous class, recitation, or lecture provides direct interaction between students and instructors and for asynchronous learning activities in which students interact with technology that can monitor and document the time that they participate in the activity.

Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes removing these asynchronous options using distance education under the definition of a clock-hour.

Reasons: The definition of a “clock hour” describes the types of coursework Start Printed Page 60262 and the conditions under which the coursework is offered that may apply to a student's eligibility for title IV, HEA funds. Coursework that does not meet this definition may still be conducted in a clock-hour program but cannot be counted toward a student's eligibility for title IV, HEA funds, in particular the ability to receive a second or subsequent disbursement of such funds. Since the very first time that the Department defined “clock hour” for the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant (BEOG) program, which later became the Pell Grant program, the Department has defined a “clock hour” as a period of time in which a student is either in a class, lecture, or recitation with an instructor, or engaged with other types of coursework that are supervised by an instructor ( 45 FR 48494 ). Although the Department defines a “clock hour” differently for correspondence coursework, such coursework is associated with other significant limitations and requirements that limit waste, fraud, and abuse.

The Department has long had concerns about allowing clock hours offered through distance education to count toward a student's eligibility for title IV, HEA funds, particularly regarding an institution's ability to adequately identify true engagement with academic coursework and monitor how long that engagement took place. However, in the September 2, 2020, final rule on distance education, the Department was persuaded that clock hours completed through asynchronous instruction could be permitted to count toward a student's title IV eligibility as long as each clock hour offered asynchronously was adequately tracked through appropriate technology ( 85 FR 54742 ). [ 5 ] Since that time, the Department's experiences with asynchronous coursework through interactions with institutions and students during program reviews and other oversight activities have frequently demonstrated that its original concerns were well-founded: such coursework often consists of limited or no engagement between instructors and students, and even when engagement does happen, institutions have difficulty adequately monitoring the amount of time that students spend on asynchronous activities.

Asynchronous learning activities often require a level of technology that schools lack or fail to meet, resulting in substandard education consisting of students having to learn material on their own. For example, the Department has found during program reviews and from speaking to students that asynchronous learning in clock-hour programs has often consisted of playing videos, reading assignments or scrolling through pages, without the meaningful interaction with the coursework or instructors that is necessary for mastery in hands-on job training programs and the development of important skills such as critical thinking and effective communication. The National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts and Sciences (NACCAS), a Department-recognized accreditor of cosmetology schools, shows another example in its definition of asynchronous learning, which includes “scrolls through reading material” and “works on assignments” as a learning activity. [ 6 ] The Department is concerned that these kinds of learning activities, while helpful for students, would not meet the definition of a “clock hour” because scrolling through materials and working on assignments are activities that are more comparable to homework than 50 to 60 minutes of in-class or faculty-supervised instruction or training.

Asynchronous instruction in clock-hour programs also does not foster direct interaction between students and instructors, which can make it difficult for students to receive the training necessary for the types of occupations for which clock-hour programs train students. Students have repeatedly informed the Department during program reviews and oversight activities that the lack of direct engagement with instructors hampered their ability to obtain the skills necessary to pass certification exams or obtain a job in their field. The Department's observations during its compliance work are consistent with studies performed on the issue. As explained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, surveys and evaluations of job training programs that are typically offered in clock hours have shown general concerns that distance education is not sufficient to provide learners with the type of “hands-on” experience that they need and expect in those kinds of programs. [ 7 ] One recent study of a technical program found that students had greater clarity in understanding and confidence to solve exam questions after synchronous, rather than asynchronous, instruction. [ 8 ] The same study found that students had significantly higher exam scores in topics taught through synchronous instruction compared to asynchronous instruction. [ 9 ] Eliminating the asynchronous option for clock-hour programs would provide a more effective education, which would better prepare students for the kinds of occupations that have traditionally required more hands-on instruction and training, and which, in many cases, require passing a licensure or certification exam in order to obtain employment. The Department notes that this does not prevent institutions from using asynchronous activities to supplement a student's program of study, but those activities cannot be counted toward clock hours used for title IV purposes, just as assigned reading outside of classroom hours does not count for that purpose.

Current Regulations: None.

Proposed Regulations: We propose to add a definition of distance education course that would include courses that are offered exclusively through distance education, notwithstanding in-person non-instructional requirements, including orientation, testing, academic support services, or residency experiences.

Reasons: As with the addition of virtual location as a type of additional location, the proposed addition of a definition for distance education course would enable the Department to better assess the effectiveness of distance education and compare its outcomes with those of traditional in-person instruction. The proposed definition also would help clarify a term about which there has been some confusion between institutions and students, as pointed out by negotiators, and would facilitate determinations of whether institutions are in compliance with the requirement to acquire additional accreditor approval when they pass the 50 percent threshold for the number of classes they offer via distance education, as explained in Dear Colleague Letter GEN-23-09. [ 10 ]

The Department proposes to define a “distance education course” as comprising only distance education as Start Printed Page 60263 defined under 34 CFR 600.2 for several reasons. First, we intend for the definition to be as consistent as possible with the definition of “distance education” currently used for the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). We also wish to provide clarity regarding an institution's calculation of the 50 percent threshold for distance education courses described above as well as proposed requirements for institutions to provide student-specific reporting of distance education coursework described below under § 668.41. It is not the Department's intent to capture in this definition coursework that is offered primarily on campus but that includes online components such as a learning management system where assignments or homework are maintained or submitted.

Current Regulations: Current § 668.3(b) sets forth certain definitions applicable to the title IV programs, and within the definition of a week of instructional time in § 668.3(b)(2)(ii), there are two sub-paragraphs stating that institutions offering asynchronous coursework through distance education must make available to students the resources necessary for academic engagement, and they must expect students to perform educational activities demonstrating academic engagement during the week.

Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend § 668.3(b)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) to limit asynchronous coursework that can count toward an institution's definition of an academic year to coursework offered in credit-hour programs.

Reasons: These edits are necessary to conform the regulations in § 668.3 with the Department's proposal regarding asynchronous education in clock-hour programs in § 600.2.

Current Regulations: Current § 668.41 lists institutional reporting and disclosure requirements.

Proposed Regulations: We propose, in new paragraph (h), to require institutions to report their enrollment in distance education or correspondence courses.

Reasons: As requested by many of the negotiators, the Department proposes to add a requirement in § 668.41 to report each recipient of title IV, HEA assistance by enrollment status in distance education or correspondence courses. We believe this will provide the Department with expanded information to better answer questions about college access, persistence, completion, and success, and to better inform student-centered policies for distance education. This reporting requirement would also improve the Department's ability to determine whether institutions have reached the 50 percent threshold for distance education enrollment announced in Dear Colleague Letter GEN-23-09. [ 11 ] When institutions enroll at least 50 percent of their students in distance education, offer at least 50 percent of their courses or 50 percent of a program via distance education, they must obtain further accreditor approval beyond the initial approval to deliver distance education programs.

During negotiations, non-Federal negotiators proposed collecting student-level distance education information. While the Department did not take the proposal as written, this change would effectuate the intent of the proposal, and we would explain the details of this reporting in guidance pertaining to the operation of the Department's systems.

The Department proposes to implement this provision no earlier than July 1, 2026, given the significant amount of change that would be required in Federal Student Aid (FSA)'s systems. This will also provide institutions with sufficient time to make any necessary changes to their own systems and prepare to report the additional information to the Department. Institutions already report information regarding distance education enrollment at the aggregate level for IPEDS, however the Department understands that this requirement may require institutions to update their systems for reporting distance education enrollment on a student-by-student basis.

Current Regulations: Currently, under section § 668.21(a)(2)(ii), when a disbursement of title IV aid is made to a student, but the student does not begin attendance in the payment period or period of enrollment, the loan servicer issues a final demand letter, in accordance with 34 CFR 685.211 , requiring the student to immediately return all Direct Loan funds directly received that are associated with the payment period or period of enrollment.

Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes to amend § 668.21(a)(2)(ii) by removing “will issue a final demand letter to the borrower in accordance with 34 CFR 682.412 or 34 CFR 685.211 , as appropriate” and replacing it with “will initiate borrower repayment under the terms of their promissory note.”

Reasons: The Department believes the proposed change would help students repay loan amounts that were provided to them as credit balances. Because loan disbursement regulations permit a school to credit a student's account 10 days before the start of classes, students who do not actually begin attendance can receive a loan disbursement. While the part of the disbursement credited to the school gets returned, the student must repay the funds they received directly. Currently, students who receive a loan disbursement but never start attendance receive a final demand letter from the servicer for any funds not credited to the school. That amount must be repaid in full immediately. If the student does not or cannot repay the loan funds, the loan will go into default. If students have spent those funds already on other necessary expenses, such as housing, they could be forced to turn to private lenders to repay their loans or end up in default. To help students repay these credit balances, the Department proposes, allowing students to repay the loan funds they received under the terms of their promissory note, rather than requiring immediate repayment in full. This would provide the student with a formal grace period and allow the student to repay over time pursuant to a repayment plan that best meets their needs.

Current Regulations: Current § 668.22 addresses treatment of title IV, HEA funds when a student withdraws.

Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes to add a new § 668.22(a)(2)(ii)(A)( 6 ) that would establish that a student is not considered to have withdrawn if: (1) the institution's records treat a student as having never attended courses for that payment period or period of enrollment; (2) the institution returns all the title IV aid disbursed to the student for that payment period or period of enrollment; (3) the institution refunds all institutional charges to the student for the payment period or period of enrollment; and (4) the institution writes off or cancels any current year balance owed by the student to the institution due to the institution's Start Printed Page 60264 returning of title IV, HEA funds to the Department.

Reasons: Current R2T4 regulations under 34 CFR 668.22(a)(1) state that if a student begins attendance in the payment period, even if only for one day, an institution must determine the amount of title IV aid that the student earned as of their withdrawal date. If a student has not earned all disbursed aid, the unearned portion must be returned to the Department. This requires an institution to complete an R2T4 calculation for a student even if it has refunded 100 percent of that student's tuition and fees.

The Department proposes to change these requirements to allow a school to treat a student as having never attended during a payment period or period of enrollment if the institution: (1) Treats the student as never having begun attendance; (2) Returns all of a student's title IV, HEA funds for that period; (3) Refunds all the student's institutional charges for that period; and (4) Writes off or cancels any current year balance owed to the institution that results from the return of title IV funds. This would permit institutions that wish to maintain generous tuition refund policies to be exempt from performing an R2T4 calculation in cases where students are made financially whole after withdrawing. This would also result in these withdrawn students having greater Pell Grant lifetime eligibility and reduce the likelihood of these students owing a debt to the Department or the institution because the institution would be required to write off or cancel any current year balance owed to the institution that resulted from the return of title IV funds.

The proposed changes would address unique circumstances that currently constitute a withdrawal and may trigger return of funds by the school or student. While the Department does not have the authority to prohibit an institution from collecting a debt owed by a student, the Department seeks to incentivize institutions to not collect debts resulting from a student withdrawal by providing flexibility in conducting R2T4 calculations when certain conditions are met. The Department is aware that some institutions maintain policies that allow students to receive full tuition and fee refunds in certain circumstances, for example, if the student attended only a few days during a payment period or withdrew for medical reasons. These policies allow students who withdraw to avoid institutional debts and make it easier for those students to eventually re-enroll and complete their programs, whether at the same institution or elsewhere.

Use of these generous tuition refund policies would be at the discretion of the institution. The Department, however, intends for the reduced burden resulting from this exemption from the R2T4 process to serve as encouragement for institutions to develop and maintain these generous refund policies for their students.

Current Regulations: Currently, under § 668.22(b)(2), an institution that is required to take attendance must document a student's withdrawal date and maintain the documentation as of the date of the institution's determination that the student withdrew.

Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes to amend § 668.22(b)(2) to require an institution to document a withdrawal date within 14 days of the student's last date of attendance. The Department also proposes to remove the cross-reference to paragraph (l)(3) at the end of the paragraph.

Reasons: The Department proposes to codify in regulation its longstanding sub-regulatory guidance requiring schools that are required to take attendance to determine the date that a student withdrew within 14 days from the student's last day of attendance. The Department believes that 14 days is an ample amount of time to document a student's withdrawal date when taking attendance, and therefore, we propose to codify the time frame in regulation.

Current paragraph (l)(3) defines the “date of the institution's determination that the student withdrew” for an institution that is not required to take attendance. Because the proposed provision in § 668.22 applies only to institutions that are required to take attendance, the Department proposes to remove the inapplicable cross-reference.

Current Regulations: Current § 668.22 treats some institutions as required to take attendance if certain conditions are met but does not specifically mandate that distance education courses be attendance-taking for purposes of the title IV return requirements.

Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes to add a new § 668.22(b)(3)(ii) that would require an institution to take attendance, for purposes of the title IV return calculation, for each course offered entirely through “distance education” as defined in the proposed changes to § 600.2, except for doctoral dissertation research courses.

Reasons: Accurate withdrawal dates are critical to the title IV return calculations to ensure that unearned funds are returned. In the Department's experience, students in distance education courses generally do not formally withdraw, so it is critical that an institution establish an accurate withdrawal date. Under current regulations, when students withdraw without notification, a school that is not required to take attendance may use as a withdrawal date either the last date of a student's academically related activity that it has on record or the midpoint of the payment period. This can lead to institutions failing to report an accurate date, or using the date that allows the institution to keep the most money. From its compliance work on reviewing distance education, the Department has determined that institutions can often easily determine when students stop attending a distance education course, because institutional systems are already monitoring when students submit assignments or interact with instructors and students during lectures and course discussions. In fact, this monitoring is necessary for an institution to establish that it is meeting the distance education requirement of regular and substantive interaction. In addition, some institutions with online courses are already required to take attendance in certain situations described under 34 CFR 668.22(b)(3) .

The Department believes it is illogical to not require an institution to use a student's actual last date of attendance as a withdrawal date when the institution already has the mechanism in place for making that determination. Consequently, to increase the accuracy of return calculations in distance education courses, the Department proposes to require institutions to take attendance in such courses for R2T4 purposes. Schools would be required to use actual attendance data to determine a withdrawal date for students enrolled entirely in online courses for a particular payment period or period of enrollment. Institutions will be able to document the withdrawal date by documenting “academic attendance” as required under § 668.22(b)(1). Under § 668.22(l)(7)(i), academic attendance must include academic engagement as defined in § 600.2. This would increase the accuracy of R2T4 calculations for such students, limit instances of inaccurate calculations and the potential for gaming R2T4 provisions by schools, and better protect student and taxpayer funds.

During negotiations the Department heard that dissertation research courses for doctoral candidates have a unique format and are structured in such a way that it would be difficult for an institution to meet an attendance-taking Start Printed Page 60265 requirement in an online setting. While we note that all distance education courses are still required to provide regular and substantive interaction, we believe that dissertation research courses are unique and are not as likely as other distance education courses to frequently produce data on academic engagement. For this reason, the Department proposes to distinguish any academic coursework offered entirely through distance education that occurs prior to the dissertation research portion of a doctoral program, where attendance-taking would be required, from the dissertation research coursework of such program, where attendance taking would not be required.

Current Regulations: Under § 668.22(d)(1)(vii), an institution does not have to treat an approved leave of absence as a withdrawal. A leave of absence is approved if several requirements are met, including if upon return from leave the student is permitted to complete the coursework he or she began prior to the leave of absence, but clock-hour, non-term credit hour program, and subscription-based programs are exempt from this requirement.

Proposed Regulations: We propose to add an “eligible prison education program” to the list of exceptions in § 668.22(d)(1)(vii) that includes clock-hour, non-term, and subscription-based programs.

Reasons: On July 1, 2023, the Department published final regulations that detailed Pell eligibility for confined or incarcerated individuals in PEPs. [ 12 ] These regulations did not address incarcerated students who face involuntary interruptions to their academic programs. For example, an entire correctional facility may be locked down due to a security issue, interrupting a student's progress in their PEP. In § 668.22(d), we propose to provide that an incarcerated student does not have to return from a leave of absence to where the student left off and, instead, may return to a different point in their PEP. This would apply to programs of any structure, including term-based programs. This change would increase flexibility for institutions and would help boost student retention in PEPs.

Current Regulations: Currently, under § 668.22(f)(1)(ii)(A), for clock-hour programs, the percentage of the payment period or period of enrollment completed is determined by dividing the total number of clock hours in the payment period or period of enrollment into the number of clock hours scheduled to be completed as of the student's withdrawal date.

Proposed Regulations: In § 668.22(f)(1)(ii)(A), we propose to add that, for clock-hour programs, the institution would divide the total number of clock hours in the payment period or period of enrollment into the number of clock hours scheduled to be completed “since the student began attendance in the payment period or period of enrollment” as of the student's withdrawal date.

Reasons: The Department believes this change would increase accuracy and simplicity in performing R2T4 calculations. Currently, because the regulations are silent on a specific procedure, for an R2T4 calculation in a clock-hour program performed for a student who has withdrawn after successfully completing the first payment period of the program, an institution may use two methods to determine the percentage of the payment period completed: cumulative and by payment period. Both methods are based on “scheduled hours,” which are the hours a student was scheduled to complete within a payment period or period of enrollment as of their withdrawal date. This means an institution returns funds based on the amount of training that would have been completed, not necessarily how many hours the student actually attended. These methods differ significantly when a program contains two or more payment periods, which leads to widely varying calculations. The cumulative method considers the scheduled hours a student would have completed cumulatively across multiple payment periods, while the payment period method only considers the scheduled hours that have elapsed during a payment period since the student began attendance in that payment period.

The Department has observed that, when an institution uses the cumulative method, many times the percentage of funds earned by the institution is much larger than the time actually attended, because the institution is permitted to carry the student into the next payment period and use those additional scheduled hours. This results in a much smaller return of title IV funds, which ultimately hurts a student who had to withdraw from a program. The Department does not believe this is a desirable result. In addition, in its compliance efforts, the Department has seen this as an area of abuse in which some institutions carry students who are not attending into a subsequent payment period to lower the amount of title IV aid they have to return.

To promote consistency across all calculations, the Department proposes to change how institutions determine the percentage of the payment period completed for a clock-hour program by using only the payment period method. Providing one consistent way to calculate the percentage of the payment period completed would simplify R2T4 policy, reduce complexity and confusion, ensure that students are treated consistently, and eliminate an area of potential abuse.

Current Regulations: Under § 668.22(l)(9), a student in a program offered in modules is scheduled to complete the days in a module if the student's coursework in that module was used to determine the amount of the student' eligibility for title IV, HEA funds from the payment period or period of enrollment.

Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes to revise § 668.22(l)(9) to provide that a student in a program offered in modules is scheduled to complete the days in a module only when a student begins attendance in the module.

Reasons: In 2021 final regulations, the Department made several changes to R2T4 and modules. [ 13 ] In response, the Department was asked how an institution determines whether the days in a module are included in the R2T4 calculation. The Department's response was complex, and depended on whether the institution uses an R2T4 freeze date and the types of title IV, HEA aid the student was eligible for during the payment period or period of enrollment. An R2T4 freeze date is an optional policy that uses the student's enrollment schedule at a fixed point to determine the number of days the student is scheduled to attend during the period for R2T4 purposes. The R2T4 freeze date can coincide with other dates—for example census dates or Pell recalculation dates—or the R2T4 freeze date can be a separate date. Currently, institutions may use multiple R2T4 freeze dates for multiple modules.

The “freeze date” concept is important under current requirements because without this date, schools would find it very difficult to determine the denominator of the R2T4 calculation using the exact coursework a student was scheduled to attend at the time of their withdrawal. Currently, regulations Start Printed Page 60266 do not describe this concept; but sub-regulatory guidance outlines what schools should consider when determining the number of days in a period when R2T4 is required for a program offered in modules. Audit and program review findings show that schools often make errors in R2T4 calculations involving modules.

The Department proposes in § 668.22(l)(9) to simplify the determination by only including the days in a module in the denominator of the calculation if the student actually attends the module. The Department believes this will reduce complexity and errors. Institutions would no longer need to use a freeze date or differentiate between Pell and Direct loan recipients.

The change would provide consistency across title IV programs, simplify when and how to count scheduled days in a modular setting, and reduce burden for institutions and the Department by eliminating the need for a “freeze date” concept.

Current Regulations: Current § 643.3(a)(1)(i) through (v) allow individuals who are citizens or nationals of the United States, permanent residents of the United States, permanent residents of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Palau), or residents of the Freely Associated States (the Federated States of Micronesia or the Republic of the Marshall Islands) to participate in a Talent Search project. An individual is also currently eligible to participate in a Talent Search project if they are in the United States for other than a temporary purpose and provide evidence from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (currently Department of Homeland Security) of his or her intent to become a permanent resident ( i.e., conditional resident aliens, conditional entrants, self-petitioners under the Violence Against Women Act (battered immigrants), refugees, asylees, victims of human trafficking, Cuban-Haitian entrants, persons paroled into the U.S. for at least one year and Jay Treaty students).

Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes to add a new paragraph § 643.3(a)(1)(vi) that would allow individuals who are enrolled in or seek to enroll in a high school in the United States, territories, or Freely Associated States to participate in a Talent Search project, if they do not satisfy any of the other eligibility categories in this section.

Reasons: K-12 public schools must be open to all students regardless of their immigration status. As such, the Department believes that all children who attend high school in the United States should have the same access to TRIO services to assist their pathway into postsecondary education. This proposal would also align TRIO programs that serve students in the elementary or secondary context with other Federal K-12 spending programs that allow recipients (such as State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs)) to spend funds on K-12 students without regard to immigration status, such as the Title I and Title IV programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Providing TRIO services to students without immigration status (students without status) previously ineligible will additionally eliminate the operational burden of separating out students who are enrolled in public schools but not eligible for TRIO services under the current rule, enabling a greater focus on delivering educational services to all students.

The Talent Search program focuses on completing high school and increasing postsecondary education attainment. The Department's proposal to expand eligibility to all individuals who are enrolled in or seek to enroll in high school would align with the statutory goal of TRIO serving individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds in order to “prepare them for a program of postsecondary education.” This expansion of eligibility would also better enable grantees to serve students from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education, such as students from low-income backgrounds who would be first-generation college students, which is among the statutory goals of the Talent Search program (section 402B of the HEA). In addition, the Committee reached consensus on this provision.

Current Regulations: Current § 644.3(a)(1)(i) through (v) allows individuals who are citizens or nationals of the United States, permanent residents of the United States, permanent residents of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Palau), or residents of the Freely Associated States (the Federated States of Micronesia or the Republic of the Marshall Islands) to participate in an Educational Opportunity Centers project. An individual is also currently eligible to participate in an Educational Opportunity Centers project if they are in the United States for other than a temporary purpose and provide evidence from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (currently Department of Homeland Security) of his or her intent to become a permanent resident ( i.e., conditional resident aliens, conditional entrants, self-petitioners under the Violence Against Women Act (battered immigrants), refugees, asylees, victims of human trafficking, Cuban-Haitian entrants, persons paroled into the U.S. for at least one year and Jay Treaty students).

Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes to add a new paragraph § 644.3(a)(1)(vi) that would allow individuals who are enrolled in or seek to enroll in a high school in the United States, territories, or Freely Associated States to participate in an Educational Opportunity Centers project, if they do not satisfy any of the other eligibility categories in this section.

Reasons: K-12 public schools must be open to all students regardless of their immigration status. As such, the Department believes that all children who attend high school in the United States should have the same access to TRIO services to assist in their achievement toward the path of postsecondary education. This proposal would also align TRIO programs that serve students in the elementary or secondary context with other Federal K-12 spending programs that allow recipients (such as SEAs and LEAs) to spend funds on K-12 students without regard to immigration status. This provision, much like with the other two TRIO provisions addressed in this NPRM, would eliminate the administrative burden of separating out students who are enrolled in public schools but not eligible for TRIO services under the current rule.

Although the Educational Opportunity Centers program is primarily focused on increasing the number of adult participants who enroll in postsecondary education institutions, the program also supports high school seniors who are transitioning into college. The Department's proposal to expand eligibility to individuals who are enrolled in or seek to enroll in high school would align with the statutory goal of TRIO serving individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds on the path toward postsecondary education. This expansion of eligibility would also better enable grantees to serve students from groups that are traditionally Start Printed Page 60267 underrepresented in postsecondary education such as students from low-income backgrounds who would be first generation college students, which is among the statutory goals of the Educational Opportunity Centers program (section 402F of the HEA). In addition, the Committee reached consensus on this provision.

Current Regulations: Section 645.3(a)(1) through (5) allows individuals who are citizens or nationals of the United States, permanent residents of the United States, permanent residents of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Palau), or residents of the Freely Associated States (the Federated States of Micronesia or the Republic of the Marshall Islands) to participate in an Upward Bound project. An individual is also currently eligible to participate in an Upward Bound project if they are in the United States for other than a temporary purpose and provide evidence from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (currently Department of Homeland Security) of his or her intent to become a permanent resident ( i.e., conditional resident aliens, conditional entrants, self-petitioners under the Violence Against Women Act (battered immigrants), refugees, asylees, victims of human trafficking, Cuban-Haitian entrants, persons paroled into the U.S. for at least one year and Jay Treaty students).

Proposed Regulations: In new paragraph § 645.3(a)(6), the Department proposes to provide that individuals who are enrolled in or seek to enroll in a high school in the United States, territories, or Freely Associated States may participate in an Upward Bound project, if they do not satisfy any of the other eligibility categories in this section, but that such individuals are not eligible for a direct cash stipend.

Reasons: K-12 public schools must be open to all students regardless of their immigration status. As such, the Department believes that all children who attend high school in the United States should have the same access to TRIO services to assist in their path towards postsecondary education. This change would also align TRIO programs that serve students in the elementary or secondary context with other Federal K-12 spending programs that allow recipients (such as SEAs and LEAs) to spend funds on K-12 students without regard to immigration status.

Although the Upward Bound program is primarily focused on preparing participants for college, a precursor to enter college is obtaining a high school diploma. The Department proposes to expand eligibility to individuals who are enrolled in or seek to enroll in high school, without regard to their citizenship status, to align the eligibility requirements with the statutory goal of TRIO serving individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds on the path toward postsecondary education. This expansion of eligibility would also better enable grantees to serve students from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education such as students from low-income backgrounds and who would be first-generation college students, which is among the statutory goals of the Upward Bound program (section 402C of the HEA). In addition, the Committee reached consensus on this provision.

The Department's proposed expansion of student services for the Upward Bound program would not include providing direct cash stipends to individuals who do not meet the requirements of § 645.3(a)(1) through (5) because that would be contrary to Federal statute. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) prohibits “Federal public benefits” from being awarded to persons who are not able to demonstrate certain types of eligible noncitizen statuses as a “qualified alien” under 8 U.S.C. 1641(b) . PRWORA defines a “Federal public benefit” to include “any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. 1611(c)(1)(B) . As stated within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Interpretation of “Federal Public Benefit,” 63 FR 41658 (Aug. 4, 1998), these enumerated benefits exclude “non-postsecondary education programs, such as Head Start and elementary and secondary education.” The 1998 HHS interpretation also contemplates that not all benefits or services provided under certain programs would be considered “Federal public benefits.” Id. Therefore, the Department believes that TRIO grant programs providing student support services in the secondary context constitute the type of “incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits” that PRWORA was enacted to discourage. 8 U.S.C. 1601(6) .

However, in the context of Upward Bound, the Department has determined that direct cash stipends provided to program participants under § 645.42 represent a “similar benefit” to those enumerated benefits under 8 U.S.C. 1611(c)(1)(B) for which, where payment is provided to an “individual, household, or family eligibility unit[,]” falls under the restrictions of PRWORA. Because an individual who fails to meet the requirements of current § 645.3(a)(1) through (5) would generally not be a “qualified alien,” the Department proposes to clarify in § 645.3(a)(6) that individuals who qualify for program participation solely as a result of high school enrollment are not eligible for a direct cash stipend under this program.

Under Executive Order 12866 , the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 , as amended by Executive Order 14094 , defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more (adjusted every three years by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order, as specifically authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.

This proposed regulatory action is a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866 , as amended by Start Printed Page 60268 Executive Order 14094 . The Department estimates present value net benefits of $1,434,537,761 over ten years at a 2 percent discount rate. This is equivalent to an annualized net benefits of $159,702,107 over ten years. Additionally, we estimate annualized quantified costs of $9,423,657 related to paperwork burden. Notwithstanding this determination, based on our assessment of the potential costs and benefits (quantitative and qualitative), the Department has determined that the benefits of this proposed regulatory action would justify the costs.

The Department has also reviewed the regulations under Executive Order 13563 , which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866 . To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

The Department issues these proposed regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, the Department selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that these regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563 .

The Department has also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

As required by OMB Circular A-4, the Department compared the proposed regulations to the current regulations. In this regulatory impact analysis, the Department discusses the need for regulatory action, potential costs and benefits, and the regulatory alternatives we considered.

Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department identifies and explains burdens specifically associated with information collection requirements.

The Department has identified a significant need for regulatory action to address inequities and inadequate protections for students and taxpayers in the current regulations.

The HEA and the Department's regulations provide that institutions of higher education may offer programs through distance education. Currently, however, the Department has only very limited data about students enrolled in distance education, which limits the Department's ability to answer important questions about student pathways and outcomes through in-person, distance, and hybrid education. For example, an institution may offer a program that is provided on campus and a related program of the same CIP code that is provided online. The Department is currently unable to distinguish between those two programs in the data it currently receives, which limits its capacity to provide helpful and reliable information—such as College Scorecard program-level data, including debt, earnings, and completion—to students, families, institutions, and the public. This reporting requirement would also improve the Department's ability to determine whether institutions have reached the 50 percent threshold for distance education enrollment announced in Dear Colleague Letter GEN-23-09. [ 14 ] When institutions enroll at least 50 percent of their students in distance education, offer at least 50 percent of their courses, or 50 percent of a program via distance education, they must obtain further accreditor approval beyond the initial approval to deliver distance education programs.

Additionally, because of these limitations, students may be denied relief in the form of closed school discharges that they should be entitled to under the HEA in instances in which an institution ends either on-campus or online learning generally. In such cases, when an institution closes a program, it closes the entire modality through which it has provided students instruction. While some students may be satisfied learning under a different modality, others may have enrolled, at least in part, specifically to access learning through that particular modality. If an institution abruptly closes, under certain conditions, borrowers become eligible for discharges under the HEA. However, the Department is currently unable to provide relief to students whose institution remains open even though the modality of instruction they agreed to when they enrolled has ended.

The proposed regulations would create a “virtual location” for institutions that includes all students who are being instructed primarily through distance education. The proposed regulations also would change institutional reporting requirements to specify a student's distance education status. These changes would enable the Department to obtain better data and more meaningfully compare the outcomes of students, particularly for those who are enrolled in similar programs that are delivered using different modalities. These provisions would also allow borrowers to receive closed school discharge if schools end either their online or on-campus operations. Finally, the additional reporting would allow the Department to better monitor and oversee the aid programs and institutional accrediting agencies by ensuring institutions are receiving appropriate review and approval of distance education offerings. [ 15 ]

We further propose, with respect to distance education, revisions to the definition of a clock hour that would improve the integrity of the title IV, HEA programs and better align how programs award clock hours with the requirement in the HEA that distance Start Printed Page 60269 education support regular and substantive interaction between students and instructors. Under current regulations the definition of a clock hour includes asynchronous learning. Specifically, changes to the definition of a “clock hour” in § 600.2 that went into effect in 2020 provide that asynchronous learning may be offered in clock-hour programs if it involves “academic engagement in which the student interacts with technology that can monitor and document the amount of time that the student participates in the activity.” Though at the time the Department believed this change was appropriate because of a perceived need for greater institutional and student flexibility with regard to the time and place that coursework is completed, the Department's enforcement experience since that time has shown that unintended consequences outweighed any benefits. First, the Department has found that the level of engagement necessary to meet the definition of a clock hour is difficult to monitor because it requires technical expertise that many clock-hour institutions are unable or unwilling to obtain. Through program reviews, the Department is also aware of instances in which clock-hour programs offered through distance education have not complied with the requirement to ensure that the technology used documents 50-60 minutes of instruction for each clock hour in a student's program of study. Lack of such safeguards can contribute to an overall academic environment in which students do not receive the quality training necessary for obtaining a job post-completion.

Further, as a result of its enforcement efforts, the Department is concerned that asynchronous learning does not sufficiently meet the requirements of a clock-hour program. Through its program reviews, the Department has come to better understand that asynchronous instruction time that has been occurring in clock-hour programs is more similar to preparation in a correspondence course, where students essentially have to learn on their own, than time spent with an instructor in a class, lecture, recitation or in faculty-supervised laboratory, shop training, or internship. The Department is also concerned that asynchronous instruction may not provide the appropriate training for the types of occupations and fields for which clock-hour programs are designed to train students. Surveys and evaluations of job training programs that are typically offered in clock hours show that there are concerns generally that distance education is not sufficient for these types of programs to provide learners with the type of “hands-on” experience that they need and expect. [ 16 ] This survey data is consistent with information obtained from student interviews conducted during program reviews. While some students may prefer asynchronous instruction due to the need for flexible schedules, studies of technical programs have shown that students had greater clarity in understanding and confidence to solve exam questions after synchronous instruction. [ 17 ] Students also had significantly higher exam scores in topics covered through synchronous instruction than those taught through asynchronous instruction. [ 18 ]

Finally, the use of asynchronous clock hours allows a student to receive credit for clock hours that do not involve regular and substantive interaction between the student and an instructor, which is a fundamental requirement in the HEA for all distance education programs. The Department remains concerned that as clock-hour programs increasingly shift toward the use of asynchronous clock hours, the likelihood that distance education programs offered using clock hours will not meet the statutory requirements for regular and substantive interaction. Eliminating the use of asynchronous clock hours for title IV, HEA purposes, while continuing to allow synchronous clock hours involving direct instruction provides greater assurance that the statutory requirements for distance education in clock hour programs are met.

The R2T4 regulations govern the process institutions must conduct when a title IV, HEA recipient ceases attendance during a payment period or a period of enrollment. An R2T4 calculation determines, based on the proportion of a payment period or period of enrollment a student completed, whether funds must be returned by the school and/or student, or whether the student is eligible for a post-withdrawal disbursement. R2T4 calculations differ based on academic calendars and program format, including the use of clock hours or credit hours and the use of module courses within terms. R2T4 consistently ranks among the top ten compliance findings for institutions, is the subject of an entire volume of sub-regulatory guidance in the FSA Handbook and yields complex and challenging questions; therefore, the Department believes that there is a need to take regulatory action immediately to update and clarify the regulations.

Currently, when a disbursement of Direct Loan funds is made to a student, but the student does not begin attendance in the payment period or period of enrollment, the loan servicer issues a final demand letter requiring the student to immediately return all Direct Loan funds directly received associated with the payment period or period of enrollment. Some students may not be able to return all Direct Loan funds because they have already used those funds to pay for various noninstitutional educationally related expenses, such as housing. The Department believes there is a need to provide an alternative solution to the final demand letter. Therefore, the Department proposes that a student be able to repay their loans under the terms of their promissory note ( e.g., through an income-driven repayment plan).

For some institutions, the R2T4 process is filled with errors, including issues such as incorrectly determining the withdrawal date or the number of days in a payment period. To simplify the process for institutions, the Department is proposing a withdrawal exemption in which an institution would not need to conduct an R2T4 calculation if the following conditions are met: (1) the student is treated as never having begun attendance; (2) the institution returns all title IV, HEA aid disbursed to the student for that payment period or period of enrollment; (3) the institution refunds all institutional charges to the student for that payment period or period of enrollment; and (4) the institution writes off or cancels any current year balance owed by the student to the institution due to the institution's return of title IV funds to the Department.

The proposed withdrawal exemption would reduce the likelihood that a student owes money back to the school, allow the student to not exhaust annual and aggregate subsidized aid, including Pell Grants, and reduce the likelihood the student will have a loan balance Start Printed Page 60270 associated with a program they may not finish.

The Department's longstanding guidance has been that institutions required to take attendance must, within 14 days of a student's last date of attendance, document the student's withdrawal date. The Department believes that fourteen days is an ample amount of time to document a student's withdrawal date when taking attendance. Enforcement by the Department is hampered because it is not currently codified in regulation. Therefore, to support the Department's enforcement efforts, it is necessary to codify the time frame in regulation.

Accurate withdrawal dates are key to understanding if and how much aid needs to be repaid in the event of a student withdrawal. But students in distance education programs might not formally withdraw since they are not on campus. Currently, courses offered entirely through distance education are not required to take attendance unless the institution is required to do so under § 668.22(b)(2). However, the very nature of distance education requires regular and substantive interaction between the student and instructor, and for title IV, HEA purposes, institutions are required to monitor a student's academic engagement when a student is learning through distance education. To determine actual withdrawal dates and produce the most accurate R2T4 calculations, the Department believes it is necessary to require courses offered entirely through distance education to take attendance.

On July 1, 2023, the Department published final regulations that detailed Pell Grant eligibility for confined or incarcerated individuals in PEPs. [ 19 ] These regulations did not address students who are incarcerated and who face involuntary interruptions to their academic programs. For example, an entire correctional facility may be locked down due to a security issue, interrupting a student's progress in their PEP.

The Department proposes to make changes to the regulations governing leave of absence to allow a student who is incarcerated to not have to return from the leave of absence where the student left off, and instead, the individual could return to a different point in their PEP. This would apply to programs of any structure, including term-based programs. This change would increase flexibility for institutions, and would help boost student retention in PEPs.

As a part of the R2T4 calculation, institutions must determine the percentage of the payment period or period of enrollment the student completed based on scheduled clock hours if enrolled in a clock-hour program. There are currently two ways that institutions can make this determination: the payment period method and the cumulative method. The cumulative method (as described in the Significant Proposed Regulations section) usually results in a significant amount of aid earned by the student compared to the actual time the student attended during the payment period. The Department believes it is necessary to streamline this calculation so that the payment period method is standardized across all clock-hour programs.

In 2021, the Department published final regulations outlining several changes to R2T4 and modules. [ 20 ] The regulations immediately raised a question about how an institution determines whether the days in a module are included in the R2T4 calculation. The answer is complex and depends on several variables, including whether the institution uses an R2T4 freeze date and the type(s) of title IV, HEA aid for which the student was eligible during the payment period or period of enrollment.

The Department believes it is necessary to simplify the determination by only including days in the module if the student actually attends the module. This change would reduce complexity and errors and institutions would no longer need to use a freeze date or differentiate between Pell Grant and Direct loan recipients.

The TRIO programs are Federal outreach and student services programs designed to identify and provide services for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. TRIO programs serve and assist low-income individuals, first-generation college students, students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, students experiencing homelessness, and students in foster care to progress through the academic pipeline from middle school to postbaccalaureate programs. Limitations in the current regulations do not allow TRIO programs to reach all students in the geographic areas that the programs were meant to serve.

The Department proposes to expand participation in three TRIO programs that serve students in pre-postsecondary education to all disadvantaged individuals who are enrolled in or seek to enroll in a high school in the United States, territories, or Freely Associated States. K-12 public schools must be open to all students regardless of their immigration status. As such, the Department believes that all disadvantaged children who attend high school in the United States should have the same access to TRIO services to assist in their achievement toward the path of postsecondary education. This proposal would also align TRIO programs that serve students in the elementary or secondary context with other Federal K-12 spending programs that allow recipients (such as SEAs and LEAs) to spend funds on K-12 students without regard to immigration status. The provisions in §§ 643.3, 644.3, and 645.3 would eliminate the administrative burden of separating out students who are enrolled in public schools but not eligible for TRIO services under the current rule.

The Department has analyzed the costs and benefits of complying with the proposed regulations. Although many of the associated costs and benefits are not easily quantifiable, the Department currently believes that the benefits derived from the proposed regulations outweigh the associated costs, as discussed in sections 3.B. and 3.C. below.

The proposed regulations, which would apply to over 6,000 postsecondary institutions, would help ensure students are well served by the institutions of higher education they attend, increase access to postsecondary education for disadvantaged students, and ensure that the Federal Student Aid programs work in the best interests of students.

Due to the large number of affected recipients (6,003, as discussed more fully in the discussion of Establishing the Baseline (Section 3.A)), the variation in likely responses to any regulatory change, and the limited information available about current practices, the Department is not able to precisely estimate the likely costs, benefits, and other effects of the proposed regulations. Despite these limitations and based on the best available evidence as explained in the discussion of Establishing a Baseline (Section 3.A), the Department estimates present value net benefits of $148,421,308 over ten years at a 2 percent discount rate. This is equivalent to an annualized net benefit of $16,523,227 over ten years. The proposed regulations are expected to result in estimated costs of $128,216,509 in the first year following publication of the proposed regulations and yield significant benefits beginning in year five as set forth in the below table. [ 21 ]

YearNet annual costsYear 1$128,216,509Year 2109,169,616Year 355,133,908Year 455,133,908Year 5(26,004,836)Year 6(52,009,672)Year 7(78,014,508)Year 8(104,019,344)Year 9(130,024,180)Year 10(156,029,016)Total Net Present Value (NPV), 2 percent(148,421,308)Annualized, 2 percent(16,523,227)

As discussed in the Cost Estimates section (Section 3.B), the Year 1 costs include one-time costs associated with reviewing and making necessary changes to policies, procedures, and training to implement the proposed regulations. In addition to these estimated costs, the Department estimates benefits, which arise from the expanded eligibility for TRIO programs and ensuing long-term benefits to TRIO participants that would result from the proposed rule.

The assumptions, data, methodology, and other relevant materials, as applicable, on which the Department relied in developing its estimates are described throughout this Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).

Institutions of higher education would be subject to the proposed regulations. For purposes of establishing a baseline, this includes the number of institutions of higher education participating in programs under title IV of the HEA (such as Direct Loans, Federal Work Study, and Pell grants).

For purposes of this analysis, the Department bases its analysis of “postsecondary entities” on “institutions of higher education” as defined in section 102 of the HEA. It is assumed that 6,003 postsecondary institutions would be impacted by the proposed regulations. Among postsecondary institutions, institutions range from small, private, professional schools with fewer than 5 students enrolled in the fall of 2022 to large, public research universities with enrollments of more than 71,000 students and institutions operating mostly virtually with enrollments in excess of 156,000 students.

It is important to note that, across postsecondary institutions, there is wide variation in the number of students served, the number of employees, administrative structure, and annual revenue. This wide variation makes estimating the effects of the proposed regulations challenging, and the Department notes that the estimates provided are intended to reflect the average burden across the full spectrum of affected entities. As a result, estimates may be lower than the actual burden realized by, for example, larger institutions or institutions with more complex administrative structures, and larger than those actually realized by smaller institutions with less complex administrative structures.

Unless otherwise specified, the Department's model uses mean hourly wages for personnel employed in the education sector as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)  [ 22 ] and a loading factor of 2.0 to account for the employer cost of employee compensation and benefits and indirect costs ( e.g., physical space, equipment, technology costs). When appropriate, the Department identifies the specific occupation used by the BLS in its tables to support the reader's analysis. The Department assumes that inflation-adjusted wage rates remain constant for the duration of the time horizon.

In addition, throughout this RIA, some described calculations have results that are fractions. To improve readability, the Department presents these results as rounded totals in the text ( e.g., 1.95 or 3,450 instead of 1.9478 or 3,449.6786), but retains the unrounded value for purposes of its underlying calculations.

The Department invites comment on all estimates provided herein to ensure that they accurately reflect realistic assumptions about average burdens the proposed regulations would impose on the full range of affected entities.

In this section, the Department estimates monetized cost burdens associated with the proposed regulations. To assist the public in reviewing these estimates, the Department has subdivided this analysis, when appropriate, into the relevant subparts. As described below, the Department estimates a first-year cost of $19,046,893, with no estimated costs in subsequent years. The Department estimates proposed changes would result in a total annualized cost of $2,078,849.

The Department estimates that, upon promulgation of the proposed regulations, all affected entities would need time to read and understand the rule. Based on the Department's administrative experience, we assume this would require, on average, six hours from an education administrator (educational administrator (postsecondary), loaded wage rate of $117.32/hour) and six hours from a lawyer (postsecondary, loaded wage rate of $172.76/hour) for each of the 6,003 IHEs. For loan servicers, we assume this would require, on average, six hours from an education administrator (business administrator (Business Operations Specialists loaded wage rate of $85.70/hour)) and six hours from a lawyer (finance sector, loaded wage rate of $197.84/hour) for each of the seven loan servicers. In total, the Department estimates that reading and understanding the proposed rule will have a one-time cumulative cost of approximately $10,458,957 across all institutions of higher education.

As a result of proposed changes to § 668.41 to require institutions to report the enrollment status of students in distance education or correspondence courses, the Department estimates that each IHE will need to review and revise reporting policies and procedures. At the IHE level, we assume this would require half an hour from the education administrator and 1 hour from an administrative assistant (loaded wage rate of $43.58/hour) for each of the 3,732 IHEs that reported offering at least one distance education course. In total, the Department estimates reviewing and revising these procedures will cost approximately $381,560 in the first year across all impacted IHEs.

The proposed changes to the definitions in § 600.2 would remove asynchronous learning from clock-hour programs offered through distance education. The Department believes that there are very few institutions with clock-hour programs that use distance learning to provide portions of the program, because there are few State or professional licensing boards that permit distance learning for clock-hour programs. Based on data available to the Department, there are approximately 8,000 clock-hour programs operating at approximately 1,700 institutions. The Department does not have data available on how many of these institutions or programs are offered through asynchronous learning to estimate costs, and requests comment on these effects.

Proposed changes to § 668.21 would allow students that do not begin attendance at an institution to repay any disbursed loan funds directly received according to the terms of their master promissory note. Under current regulations, borrowers in this situation would receive a demand letter from the Start Printed Page 60273 Department and be required to immediately repay the loan balance in full. The Department would require the Department's seven loan servicers to update their policies and procedures to align with the proposed requirements. The Department estimates that the proposed change would require two hours from a lawyer and half an hour from a business administrator (Business Operations Specialists $85.70/hour) for each loan servicer for a total first year cost of approximately $2,719 across all loan servicers. The Department would ultimately realize these additional costs through increased contractual costs.

The proposed addition of § 668.22(a)(2)(ii)(A)( 6 ) would potentially incentivize institutions to not collect debts resulting from a student withdrawal by providing flexibility in conducting R2T4 calculations when certain conditions are met. The Department assumes that IHEs would need to review and revise their R2T4 policies and procedures. The Department estimates that the proposed change would require eight hours from an education administrators and two hours from a lawyer for each IHE for a total first year cost of approximately $7,708,332 across all institutions.

Any institution that used the cumulative method to determine the percentage of the payment period completed for a clock-hour program would be required to update their procedures and policies to only use the payment period method. The Department does not believe that many institutions use the cumulative method, however, for those that do, the Department believes costs would be negligible because institutions would have until July 1, 2025, to update policies. For more information on both methods, please see the applicable “reasons” discussion in the Significant Proposed Regulations section.

Institutions that offer programs with modules would need to update their policies and procedures to account for adjustments in how to determine the denominator in R2T4 calculations. The Department believes this would result in overall cost savings because institutions would no longer need to navigate a complex set of Department rules to determine whether or not the days in a module should be included in an R2T4 calculation. However, the Department does not maintain comprehensive information on the use of modules at eligible postsecondary institutions and therefore cannot estimate the scope of these effects.

Institutions that currently participate in the Second Chance Pell experimental site and that offer eligible PEPs in a term-based setting would need to update policies and procedures to allow more flexibility when students return from a leave of absence. The Department believes the cost would be negligible.

Proposed changes to §§ 643.3, 643.4, and 643.5 would expand eligibility for TS, EOC, and UB to any individual who is enrolled in or seeks to enroll in a high school located in the United States, territories, or Freely Associated States. The Department believes that these proposed changes would require current TS, EOC, and UB grantees to review and revise their participant recruitment and enrollment policies and procedures. At the grantee level, the Department assumes this would require two hours from an education administrator for each of the 2,111 grantees administering TS, EOC, or UB TRIO projects. In total, the Department estimates that revising project procedures would cost approximately $495,325.

The proposed regulations would impose minimal additional costs to TRIO grant recipients under TS, EOC, and UB. While it would increase the number of students who are eligible to participate, the effect is only distributional as the funds provided from Congress and to grantees would be distributed across grantees. This could mean different or additional participants receive the benefits of TRIO services, but it would not affect the overall appropriations.

Eligible grantees that offer the Talent Search program, the Educational Opportunity Centers program, and the Upward Bound program would be required to update their applications to account for students who have enrolled in or who seek to enroll in a high school in the United States, territories, or Freely Associated States. The Department believe costs would be negligible because grantees already have an application process for students to participate in these programs, and we request comment on any costs in this area.

The Department believes that these proposed regulations would likely have a wide range of benefits both for students, parents and caregivers, and the public at large. The discussion that follows discusses the benefits the Department has attempted to quantify and monetize.

In this section, the Department discusses monetizable benefits likely to result from the proposed regulations. In total, the Department estimates, after accounting for anticipated costs resulting from enrolling in postsecondary education, annualized benefits from the proposed regulations of $17,664,756 over the next ten years.

YearAnnual costs and benefits  Year 1 Cost$109,696,616Year 2 Cost109,696,616Year 3 Cost55,133,908Year 4 Cost55,133,908Year 5 Benefit(26,004,836)Year 6 Benefit(52,009,672)Year 7 Benefit(78,014,508)Year 8 Benefit(104,019,344)Year 9 Benefit(130,024,180)Year 10 Benefit(156,029,016)Annualized, 2%(17,664,756)Total NPV, 2%(158,675,187)

Benefits arise from increased earnings from improved educational attainment of students without status previously ineligible to receive TRIO program services higher levels of educational attainment and associated higher wages. The Department believes expanding TS, EOC, and UB eligibility to students previously ineligible to receive TRIO program services would result in a net benefit to the public due to the capacity within TS, EOC, and UB projects to enroll additional participants.

The Department assumes that the approximately 500,000 elementary and secondary students without status previously ineligible to receive TRIO program services are evenly distributed across each high school grade level ( i.e., 1/4 of the population is currently in each of the 9th through 12th grades). According to data from the Migration Policy Institute, [ 24 ] only 78 percent of students without status graduate from high school within four years, compared with 87 percent of all public high school students. As a result, the Department estimates that, in the absence of the proposed regulations, approximately 98,000 students without status previously ineligible to receive TRIO Start Printed Page 60274 program services would graduate from high school each year.

For the 2021-2022 reporting period, TS, UB, and EOC projects that did not meet their enrollment targets had the capacity to serve an additional 104,111 participants. According to data from the Migration Policy Institute, fifteen States (See Table 1 footnote) account for 81 percent of all high school graduates without status. [ 25 ] For the purpose of this analysis and to ensure that we do not overstate the capacity of these TRIO programs to enroll students without status, the Department limits the pool of potential enrollees to TRIO projects operating in these fifteen States.

Table 1—2021-22 TS, UB, and EOC Participation Rates

Program	Funded to serve	Actual served	Capacity to serve additional students	Capacity to serve additional students in 15 states
TS	338,427	287,019	54,416	36,628
UB	82,391	79,590	5,175	2,652
EOC	209,735	167,576	44,520	16,473
Total	630,553	534,185	104,111	55,753

For the purposes of this analysis, the Department assumes that TS, UB, and EOC projects could enroll a maximum of 55,753 participants without status as a result of this proposed rule and utilizes this figure as the universe of potential participants.

Table 2—Sensitivity Analysis of Potential Number of TRIO Enrollments Resulting From Proposed Rule Using 2021-22 TS, UB, and EOC Participation Rates

Program	Capacity to serve additional students	Sensitivity analysis—potential number of TRIO enrollments resulting from proposed rule
		1%	5%	10%
TS	36,628	366	1,831	3,663
UB	2,652	27	133	265
EOC	16,473	165	824	1,647
Total	55,753	558	2,788	5,575

The Department conducted a sensitivity analysis of the possible impact of the proposed rule on TS, UB, or EOC enrollment. We assume that 55,753 is the maximum number of students without status that could potentially enroll in TS, UB, or EOC as a result of the proposed rule. The Department assumes that there are a variety of reasons that a student that would be otherwise eligible as a result of the proposed rule would ultimately not enroll in TS, UB, or EOC. Therefore, the Department conducted a sensitivity analysis that analyzed program enrollment rates of 1, 5, or 10 percent of the universe of eligible participants. As described below, the benefits of the rule grow as the size of the TRIO enrollment effect increases. For the purposes of this RIA we estimate that 5 percent, or 2,788 students without status, would enroll in TS, UB, or EOC as a result of this rule.

The Department therefore estimates that of the 55,753 estimated capacity of TS, UB, and EOC projects in States likely to serve students without status, 1,831 would enroll in TS, 133 would enroll in UB (including UBMS), and 824 would enroll in EOC. In total, the Department estimates that this proposed rule would result in 2,788 additional high school students without status previously ineligible to receive TRIO services enrolling in TS, UB, or EOC. For the purposes of this analysis the Department assumes that the 2,788 included as part of this analysis are students that would not have otherwise graduated from postsecondary education. The Department invites comments on this assumption.

Table 3—Estimated Additional TRIO Program Participants Based on Proposed Rule

ProgramTRIO program participantsPostsecondary enrollment ratePostsecondary enrolleesTS1831681245UB1337599EOC82457469Start Printed Page 60275Total2,7881,813

According to data from NCES, [ 29 ] in 2020, approximately 43 percent of high school completers immediately enrolled in a 4-year college or university and an additional 20 percent immediately enrolled in a 2-year program. In comparison, according to data from TRIO performance reports for 2022, 68 percent of TS participants enrolled in college, 75 percent of UB (including UBMS and VUB) participants enrolled in college, and 57 percent of EOC participants enrolled in college. EOC enrollment rates are typically lower than TS and UB as EOC participants include adults who are not connected to formal education systems. [ 30 ] Therefore, the Department estimates that a total of 1,813 students without status would enroll in postsecondary education as a result of their participation in TS, UB, or EOC.

For those 1,813 additional students that would enroll in postsecondary education, the Department assumes that these students would earn at least some college credit from a 2- or 4-year institution. Among the 2012 UB cohort, 35 percent of UB participants that enrolled in postsecondary education earned a degree at a 4-year IHE while 7 percent of UB participants earned a degree at a 2-year IHE. For the purposes of this analysis, and due to lack of data, the Department assumes that postsecondary graduation rates are comparable between TS, UB, and EOC. We request comment on this assumption. Therefore, we assume that 58 percent of UB participants did not complete a bachelor's degree, associate's degree, or certificate within six years of initial enrollment. For our analysis we identify those that did not complete a degree or certificate as earning some college credit.

Table 4—Estimated Additional Postsecondary Completers Based on Proposed Rule

Postsecondary completersEstimated completersSome College1,052Certificate/Associate's Degree126Bachelor's Degree635Total1,813

For several analyses, the Department relies on estimated wages by educational attainment. For these analyses, the Department relies on data from BLS  [ 31 ] regarding earnings differences across individuals with different educational attainment. The relevant data are reproduced in Table 5. Estimated Weekly Earnings of Postsecondary Enrollees by Highest Level of Attainment, below for easier reference.

Table 5—Estimated Weekly Earnings of Postsecondary Enrollees by Highest Level of Educational Attainment

Highest education attainment	Individuals	Median usual weekly earnings	Unemployment rate (%)	Total estimated weekly earnings
HS Diploma	0	899	3.9	n/a
Some College	1,052	992	3.3	1,008,864
Certificate/Associate's Degree	126	1,058	2.7	130,134
Bachelor's Degree	635	1,493	2.2	927,153
Total	1,813	n/a	n/a	2,066,151

The Department estimates that these proposed regulations would directly result in an additional 1,813 students enrolling in and completing as least some postsecondary education. In addition, the Department assumes that affected individuals would have average earnings and employment rates equal to those at high school diploma level in the baseline, and average earnings and employment rates equal to their new educational attainment level following implementation of the rule. The Department estimates that the total weekly earnings of these students if they had only earned a high school diploma would be $1,566,058. These students' enrollment in postsecondary education would result in total weekly earnings of $2,066,151, an increase of $500,093 per week

Based on the earnings and unemployment information described in Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, [ 33 ] the Department estimates that the additional 1,813 students enrolled in postsecondary education could annually earn, in total, $26,004,836 more than they would have had they not enrolled in postsecondary education. We request comment on the assumptions leading to this result. The Department assumes that these benefits would not accrue until Year 5 and then would annually Start Printed Page 60276 compound in future years as additional cohorts of students without status previously ineligible to receive TRIO services graduate at higher rates. To the extent that additional individuals complete postsecondary education before Year 5, this assumption will underestimate actual benefits from the proposed regulations.

The Department estimates that the benefits of the proposed rule described above would outweigh costs resulting from lost wages from delaying entry into the workforce and tuition costs.

Under the proposed changes to §§ 643.3, 643.4, and 643.5, the Department estimates that newly eligible recipients that enroll postsecondary education would realize an opportunity cost from the loss of wages they would otherwise receive as a high school graduate immediately entering into the workforce. The Department estimates that an additional 1,813 students without status would enroll in postsecondary education each year as a result of the proposed rule. The Department assumes that of these students, 1,742 would find employment and earn a median wage of $899 per week as a high school graduate for total weekly earnings of $1,566,058. The Department estimates that annual costs of $81,435,016 during the first two years after the implementation of the proposed rule to account for students enrolled in both four-year and two-year postsecondary education. The Department assumes for the purposes of this analysis that 50 percent of these students are enrolled at a four-year IHE and therefore will realize an opportunity cost of $40,717,508 in years three and four. The Department requests comment on these assumptions.

In addition, under the proposed changes to §§ 643.3, 643.4, and 643.5, the Department estimates that newly eligible recipients that enroll postsecondary education would realize postsecondary tuition costs. Due to a lack of available data, the Department assumes that the 1,813 students without status estimated to enroll in postsecondary education each year as a result of the proposed rule will be equally divided across four-year public IHEs, four-year private nonprofit IHEs, two-year public IHEs, and two-year private nonprofit IHEs. The Department requests comment on these assumptions. Based on NCES data, [ 34 ] the Department assumes that the average net price to enrolled students of $11,000 for students at four-year public IHEs, $20,800 for students at four-year private nonprofit IHEs, [ 35 ] $8,300 for students at two-year public IHEs, and 21,100 for students at two-year private IHEs.

Type of IHE	Students	Net price to student	Total
Four-year public IHE	454	11,000	4,994,000
Four-year private nonprofit IHE	453	20,800	9,422,400
Two-year public IHE	453	8,300	3,759,900
Two-year private IHE	453	21,100	9,558,300
Total	1,813		27,734,600

The Department estimates that annual costs of $27,734,600 during the first two years after the implementation of the proposed rule to account for students enrolled in both four-year and two-year postsecondary education. The Department assumes for the purposes of this analysis that 50 percent of these students are enrolled at a four-year IHE and therefore will realize tuition costs of $14,416,400 in years three and four. The Department requests comment on these assumptions.

Changes proposed to provide better data on student outcomes for students enrolled in distance education would provide benefits for students in allowing reporting and evaluations of outcomes for students depending on their enrollment in distance education, traditional on-site instruction, or a combination of the two. Such analysis is increasingly advantageous to determine the educational and cost effectiveness of postsecondary instruction as it becomes more available at a distance.

Students can also benefit from the change to only allow synchronous instruction in clock-hour programs offered through distance education. Because studies have shown better student outcomes when comparing synchronous and asynchronous instruction, students would likely have greater persistence and completion, and would also likely benefit from improved labor market outcomes. [ 36 ]

Students would benefit from these regulations under several of the proposed regulations. If institutions choose to implement the optional withdrawal exemption, students who withdraw would not owe any balance related to any returned title IV, HEA aid to the Department or the institution. This would alleviate students from the burden of having to repay title IV, HEA dollars or owing an institutional debt related to a payment period or period of enrollment that they did not complete.

If a school chooses not to implement the optional withdrawal exemption, students that received a Direct Loan but did not begin attendance in their program would be able to repay their loans under the terms of a promissory note as opposed to the current practice of receiving a demand letter for the full payment. Students would be able to benefit from an income-driven repayment plan, or standard payment plans with payments that could potentially be paid over 30 years.

Students who are incarcerated at times may need to (or be forced to) take a break in their PEP, including activities out of their control such as prison-wide lockdowns or involuntary transfers to other facilities. The proposed regulations would benefit incarcerated students allowing them to not have to come back from the leave of absence where they left off (as current regulations require), and instead, the student could come back at a different point in their eligible prison education program, affording greater flexibility in their academic progression.

Institutions would benefit under several of these proposed regulations. Currently, an institution offering clock- Start Printed Page 60277 hour programs may use two methods to determine the percentage of the payment period completed: cumulative, and by payment period. The proposed regulations would require institutions to use the payment period method when calculating the number of scheduled hours completed in clock-hour programs. This change would reduce the complexity of the R2T4 calculations and the inconsistency in the manner in which the calculation is done for clock-hour programs at different institutions.

Currently institutions implement complex sub-regulatory guidance to determine the number of days in the payment period for a program offered in modules, even if the student did not attend the module. The proposed regulations would benefit institutions through the requirement that the student actually attend the module for the days in the module to be included in the payment period. It would also eliminate the need for a “freeze date” (explained in the discussion section), further reducing complexity.

Overall, we believe that the more accurate calculations and reductions in complexity would benefit the taxpayer by reducing errors in R2T4 calculations, resulting in more accurate amounts being returned to the Department and further supporting the integrity of the title IV, HEA programs. R2T4 consistently ranks in the Top 10 compliance findings, [ 37 ] costing the Federal government time and money to provide assistance through training and conducting program reviews in an effort to identify and correct R2T4 errors committed by institutions. We believe the proposed changes would also help alleviate some compliance issues related to R2T4.

For example, we have proposed a requirement that schools that offer distance education courses entirely online begin taking attendance for those courses. As a result, we anticipate more accurate calculations through the use of actual withdrawal dates from attendance records, thus providing taxpayers a more accurate accounting of title IV, HEA funds returned.

As discussed above, the proposed changes to TRIO would align TRIO programs that serve students in the elementary or secondary context with other Federal K-12 spending programs that allow recipients (such as SEAs and LEAs) to spend funds on K-12 students without regard to immigration status. This would eliminate the administrative burden of separating out students who are enrolled in public schools but not eligible for TRIO services under the current rule.

As required by OMB Circular A-4, the Department has prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of these regulations. This table provides the best estimate of the changes in annual monetized benefits and costs of these proposed regulations.

ProvisionAnnualized benefits 2% discount rateTRIO Expanded eligibility—Postsecondary earnings$17,664,756 Annualized costs 2% discount rateReading and Understanding the New Rule$1,141,529Distance Education—Reporting and disclosure of information41,645R2T4—Student does not begin attendance297R2T4—Student withdrawal841,316TRIO Expanded Eligibility35,105,062

As part of the development of these proposed regulations, the Department engaged in a negotiated rulemaking process in which we received comments and proposals from non-Federal negotiators representing numerous impacted constituencies. These included higher education institutions, consumer advocates, students, financial aid administrators, accrediting agencies, and State attorneys general. Non-Federal negotiators submitted a variety of proposals relating to the issues under discussion. Information about these proposals is available on our negotiated rulemaking website at www2.ed.gov/​policy/​highered/​reg/​hearulemaking/​2023/​index.html .

During negotiations there was no disagreement with the Department's proposal to amend the definition of “additional location” to separately identify virtual locations and to define “distance education course” (which was based on a negotiator suggestion), so there was little discussion on these topics.

The negotiators also did not disagree with the general idea of requiring institutions to report students' enrollment in distance education. There were suggestions about what that reporting should entail, including more detailed data about the extent of students' enrollment in distance education and not just whether they are in-person or distance education students. The discussion settled on reporting students as having one of three statuses: fully in-person, fully at a distance, or a hybrid of the two. This would be a simple determination for schools that would also provide sufficient information for the Department. Because specific details about this reporting are yet to be determined, the proposed regulation establishes the general requirement and notes that reporting will be in accordance with procedures to be established by the Secretary.

Some negotiators disagreed with the proposed elimination of asynchronous distance education in the definition of clock-hour programs in § 600.2. Negotiators representing various institutional sectors contended that instruction in clock-hour programs need not be entirely hands-on, that there is a didactic component that lends itself to asynchronous instruction, and that schools have been able to master the technology necessary for close accounting of student academic engagement. These negotiators suggested limiting the amount of a clock-hour program that can occur asynchronously to 50 percent. Based on our review of clock-hour programs that delivered substandard education with little direct instructor interaction, we disagree that schools have the technology and resources to adequately monitor student academic engagement, as discussed in the section above on the proposed revisions to distance education. Allowing 50 percent of instruction to be asynchronous would still permit substandard education to occur. We thus reaffirmed that elimination of asynchronous distance education in clock-hour programs would be appropriate.

The Department initially proposed to exempt confined or incarcerated individuals from R2T4 if the students withdrew from a program due to circumstances outside of their control, such as a correctional facility-wide lockdown or an involuntary transfer to a different facility. Upon further review, we determined that we do not have the legal authority to waive R2T4 Start Printed Page 60278 requirements for a targeted group of students. In addition, the Department heard concerns from several negotiators that confined or incarcerated individuals may reach their Pell grant lifetime eligibility used (LEU) faster under this proposal without obtaining an academic credential. And finally, the Department heard from some additional negotiators that some postsecondary institutions have already established policies that account for involuntary breaks in PEPs, such as waiving all charges related to the affected payment period, and our initial proposal might have caused institutions to revise or remove beneficial student polices already in place.

To address the negotiators' concerns, the Department instead proposed a new condition under the leave of absence provisions (§ 668.22(d)), targeted at confined or incarcerated individuals that take a break from their PEP due to events at their correctional facility, which would give students and institutions, especially in term-based settings, more flexibility when students return from a leave of absence. In term-based settings, the proposal would allow a confined or incarcerated individual to not have to come back from the leave of absence resuming where the student left off, and instead, the individual could resume at a different point in their PEP. The postsecondary institution would still have to adhere to all other requirements of a leave of absence as we propose they remain unchanged.

The Department considered exempting direct assessment programs offered through distance education from the proposed requirement under § 668.22(b)(3)(i)(D) that would require an institution to take attendance for each course offered entirely through distance education. A negotiator stated three concerns: (1) requiring an R2T4 calculation that is artificially based on dates of attendance, in a program structure that is not designed around seat time, would disincentivize progression and punish students who complete program requirements more quickly than anticipated; (2) requiring attendance in direct assessment programs would not increase the accuracy of R2T4 calculations, because the amount of funds earned by these students is not correlated to time and an attendance-based calculation does not accurately reflect the actual amount of coursework completion for students who take advantage of self-paced instruction; and (3) to offset these negative effects, institutions may feel compelled to add pedagogically unnecessary content or participation requirements to courses in order to increase the frequency of attendance-taking opportunities. The negotiator argued that doing so would undermine the advantages of self-paced direct assessment programs and could unnecessarily increase program length and cost.

The Department is not persuaded by these arguments, because all distance education courses are still required to provide regular and substantive interaction. Direct assessment programs offered through distance education do not pose unique attendance-based challenges that justify exemption from the requirement. Direct assessment programs, like all other programs, are required to determine a withdrawal date, which is the last date of academic attendance as determined by the institution's academic records. The Department believes that institutions that offer direct assessment programs through distance education already have systems in place that sufficiently monitor academic engagement and thus can easily determine attendance and, by extension, a student's withdrawal date.

As part of our 2019 negotiated rulemaking, the Department adopted a withdrawal exemption for programs offered in modules that treat a student as not withdrawn if the student successfully completes one or more modules that make up 49 percent or more of the number of days in the payment period. The Department's initial proposal with negotiators suggested removing the 49 percent withdrawal exemption, which, for students that do not qualify for another withdrawal exemption, would mean that more money would be returned to the Department and students would not exhaust their aid eligibility as quickly. The Department also believed that removing the 49 percent withdrawal exemption would eliminate observed confusion between this figure and the 60 percent completion requirement under the R2T4 calculation, and eliminate the continued need for significant guidance and training on how to determine whether a student qualifies for the exemption.

Many negotiators disagreed with the elimination of the 49 percent withdrawal exemption. Negotiators stated that their institutions had already updated systems and policies to account for the exemption and that it was serving students well. Negotiators also pointed out that the exemption has only been in regulation since 2021 and, instead of eliminating the exemption, the Department should provide more guidance and training to assist those institutions that may be having some difficulty implementing this regulatory requirement. In light of these negotiator concerns and suggestions, the Department decided to retain this exemption.

The current proposal for the Upward Bound Program, the Educational Opportunity Centers, and the Talent Search program would allow an individual to participle in these programs if they are enrolled in, or seek to enroll in, high school in the United States. All of these three TRIO programs serve students at the secondary school level. The Department also considered, at the suggestion of a negotiator, expanding the eligibility proposal to Student Support Services and the McNair Scholars Program, which are postsecondary level TRIO programs.

The Department determined to limit eligibility expansion to the three identified secondary school programs based on our belief that all children who attend high school in the United States should have the same access to public TRIO services to assist in their path toward postsecondary education. This proposal also aligns TRIO with the treatment of students in other Federal K-12 spending programs, which allow recipients (such as State education agencies and local education agencies) to spend funds on K-12 students without regard to immigration status.

The TRIO programs have limited resources, with the TRIO programs currently serving less than 10 percent of the eligible population. The Department is proposing to expand eligible participants to focus on the most vulnerable population: children who do not yet have the basic education that comes from high school completion, which is a necessary step toward postsecondary education.

The Department considered not regulating, but as noted in the previous section, K-12 public schools are open to students regardless of their immigration status. As such, the Department believes that all children who attend high school in the United States should have the same access to TRIO services to assist their pathway into postsecondary education. Start Printed Page 60279

This section considers the effects that the proposed regulations may have on small entities in the educational sector as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The purpose of the RFA is to establish as a principle of regulation that agencies should tailor regulatory and informational requirements to the size of entities, consistent with the objectives of a particular regulation and applicable statutes. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.” As noted in the RIA, the Department does not expect that the regulatory action will have a significant budgetary impact, but there are some costs to small institutions that are described in this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

The Secretary is proposing new regulations to ensure students are well served by the institutions of higher education they attend, increase access to postsecondary education for disadvantaged students, and ensure that Federal Student Aid programs work in the best interests of students. Proposed regulations for distance education would help the Department better measure and account for student outcomes, improve oversight over distance education, and ensure students are receiving effective education by requiring additional reporting of programs offered entirely through online education, requiring students' distance education enrollment status, and disallowing asynchronous distance education in clock-hour programs for title IV, HEA purposes. The proposed R2T4 regulations would help withdrawn students repay outstanding Direct Loan credit balances, increase the accuracy and simplicity of performing R2TV calculations, add additional clarity to institutions on reporting, and codify longstanding policies. The proposed TRIO regulations would expand student eligibility and provide greater access to postsecondary education for disadvantaged students who have enrolled or seek to enroll in a high school in the United States, territories, or Freely Associated States.

Through the proposed regulations, the Department aims to address inequities and inadequate protections for students to ensure the Federal Student Aid programs work to accomplish postsecondary access and completion. This includes ensure the Department, students, and families have the information needed to answer important questions about enrollment in and success with distance education, the ability provide closed school discharges where a program closes, that students that withdraw are able to repay their debt, and that disadvantaged students have the opportunity to access and succeed in postsecondary education.

The Department's authority to the proposed regulations stems primarily from multiple statutory enactments: first, 20 U.S.C. 1070-1099d (sections 400-499 of the HEA) which authorizes the Federal government's major student financial aid programs; second, 20 U.S.C. 1070(b) (section 400(b) of the HEA) which outline the Secretary's broad authority to carry out program requirements; and third, the sections that govern the Department's oversight responsibility under title IV 20 U.S.C. 1099c , 1099c-1 , 1099c-2 (sections 498, 498A, and 498B of the HEA). The specific statutory sources of this authority are detailed in the Authority for This Regulatory Action section above.

Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Regulations Will Apply as noted above, SBA defines small proprietary institutions of higher education (IHEs) based on revenue. These regulations apply, however, to all IHEs, which cannot be compared across institutions and sectors using the SBA revenue size standard because the RFA does not measure non-profit and public sector IHEs based on revenue. As a result, for purposes of the proposed regulations, the Department defines “small entities” by reference to enrollment, as it has done in other rulemakings, to allow meaningful comparison of regulatory impact across all types of IHEs in the for-profit, non-profit, and public sectors. [ 38 ] The Department notes that enrollment and revenue are correlated for all IHES and that IHEs with higher enrollment tend to have the resources and infrastructure in place to more easily comply with the Department's regulations in general and the proposed regulations in particular. Since enrollment data is more readily available to the Department for all IHEs, the Department has used enrollment as the basis to identify small IHEs in prior rulemakings and continues to use enrollment to identify small IHEs in the proposed regulations. This approach also allows the Department to use the same metric to identify small IHEs across the for-profit, non-profit, and public sectors, and it treats public IHEs operated at the behest of jurisdictions with a population of more than 50,000 but with low enrollment as small, which the SBA's standard would not treat as small. Lastly, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), under which SBA's revenue standards in 13 CFR 121.201 are generally established, set different revenue thresholds for IHEs that provide different areas of instruction ( e.g., cosmetology, computer training, and similar programs) and there is no existing data that aligns those different revenue standards to the different types of regulated IHEs. Similarly, where an institution provides instruction in several of these areas, it is unclear which revenue threshold to apply for purposes of the Department's RFA analysis.

As explained above, the enrollment-based size standard remains the most relevant standard for identifying all IHEs subject to the proposed regulations. Therefore, instead of the SBA's revenue-based size standard, which applies only to proprietary IHEs, the Department has defined “small IHE” as (1) a less-than-two-year institution with an enrollment of fewer than 750 students, or (2) an at-least two-year but less-than-four-year institution, or a four-year institution, with enrollment of fewer than 1,000 students. [ 39 ] As a result Start Printed Page 60280 of discussions with the SBA Office of Advocacy, this is an update from the standard used in some prior rules, such as the “Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment (GE), Financial Responsibility, Administrative Capability, Certification Procedures, Ability to Benefit (ATB),” published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2023, 88 FR 32300 , “Improving Income Driven Repayment for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program and the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2023, 88 FR 43820 , and the proposed regulations, “Pell Grants for Prison Education Programs; Determining the Amount of Federal Education Assistance Funds Received by Institutions of Higher Education (90/10); Change in Ownership and Change in Control,” published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2022. 87 FR 65426 . Those prior regulations applied an enrollment standard for a small two-year institution of less than 500 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students and for a small 4-year institution, less than 1,000 FTE students. [ 40 ] The Department consulted with the SBA Office of Advocacy on the alternative standard for this rulemaking. The Department continues to believe this approach most accurately reflects a common basis for determining size categories that is linked to the provision of educational services and that it captures a similar universe of small entities as the SBA's revenue standard. In accordance with section 601 of the RFA, the Department seeks comment on the appropriateness of this alternative size standard as it relates to this rule.

We note that the Department's revised alternative size standard and the SBA's revenue standard identify a similar number of total proprietary IHEs, with greater than 93 percent agreement between the two standards. Using the Department's revised alternative size standard, approximately 61 percent of all IHEs would be classified as small for these purposes. Based on data from NCES, in 2022, small IHEs had an average enrollment of approximately 289 students. In contrast, all other IHEs had an average enrollment of approximately 5,509 students.

Table 1—Number of Small IHEs Under Enrollment-Based Definition

	4-year	2-year	Less than 2-year	Total
Not Small	1,548	639	84	2,271
Small	1,219	936	1,577	3,732
Total	2,767	1,575	1,661	6,003
Source: 2022 IPEDS data reported to the Department.

In addition, the following tables show the breakdown of this 93 percent agreement, using institutional-level data relating to the 2,334 private for-profit IHEs that were identified using 2022 IPEDS data. [ 41 ] The enrollment size standard identifies 2,073 for-profit IHEs as small, and the revenue size standard identifies 2,044 for-profit IHEs as small, with a core of the same 1,917 for-profit IHEs identified as small under both standards. There are 156 IHEs that are only identified as small under the enrollment standard and 127 IHEs that are only identified as small under the revenue standard. Below are descriptive statistics of those for-profit IHEs identified as small by only one of the measures.

Table 2 shows the distribution of revenues and the average enrollments of the 156 for-profit IHEs identified as small under only the enrollment size standard. A large majority of these for-profit IHEs do not have revenue data available in IPEDS. The average enrollment for this group with no revenue data available is 210 students.

Table 2—Small IHEs Under Enrollment Size Standard Only

Revenue categoryNumber of IHEsAverage enrollmentNo Data149210$35-40 million4580$41-55 million2696Above $55 million1320Total156226

Table 3 shows the distribution of enrollments and the average revenues of the 127 for-profit IHEs identified as small under only the revenue size standard. Six of these 127 IHEs do not have enrollment data available through IPEDS. There are 57 IHEs in the bin of “1,000-1,249 students”, which is closest to the enrollment threshold for for-profits, and average revenue for these IHEs is $13.3 million. To the extent that the proposed alternative size standard covers for-profit IHEs that would not otherwise be covered (and the revenue standard covers for-profit Start Printed Page 60281 IHEs that would not be covered by the enrollment standard), the Department proposes to treat certain for-profit IHEs as small and others as not small because of the reasons for proposing an alternative size standard explained in this section above.

Table 3—Small IHEs Under Revenue Size Standard Only

Enrollment categoryNumber of IHEsAverage revenueNo Data6$1,206,5081,000-1,249 students5713,269,7531,250-1,499 students2319,122,8311,500-1,749 students1319,247,7301,750-1,999 students1423,287,464Above 2,000 students1423,527,952Total12716,606,901

Tables 4 and 5 show the distribution of institution levels for for-profit IHEs identified as small by the enrollment size standard only and by the revenue size standard only, respectively.

Table 4—Level of For-Profit IHEs Identified as Small Under the Enrollment Size Standard Only

LevelNumber of IHEsLess than 2 years (below associate)73At least 2 but less than 4 years45Four or more years38Total156

Table 5—Level of For-Profit IHEs Identified as Small Under the Revenue Size Standard Only

LevelNumber of IHEsLess than 2 years (below associate)50At least 2 but less than 4 years50Four or more years27Total127

Notably, the five states with the most IHEs that are identified as small under only the enrollment standard are California (34), Texas (15), Florida (13), New Jersey (7), and Puerto Rico (7). The five states with the most IHEs that are identified as small under only the revenue standard are California (28), Florida (18), Texas (11), Arizona (8), and Illinois (6).

Based on the model described in the discussion of RIA, an IHE would see a minimum net increase in costs of approximately $3,361 in year 1 for all IHEs, as explained in more detail in the 3.B. COSTS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS section of this Regulatory Impact Analysis and included in the table below:

Table 6—Estimated Net Increase in Costs

CategoryYear 1 Reading and Understanding the New Rule$1,740Total cost of $10,458,957 divided by the total institutions effectedDistance Education—Reporting and Disclosure of Information102Total cost of $381,560 divided by the total institutions offering distance educationReturn of Title IV Funds When Student Withdraws1,284Total cost of $7,708,332 divided by the total institutions effectedTRIO Expanded Eligibility235Total cost of $495,325 divided by total grantees impactedTotal3,361

For purposes of assessing the impacts on small entities, the Department defines a “small IHE” as a less than two-year IHE with an enrollment of less than 750 FTE and two-year or four-year IHEs with an enrollment of less than 1,000 FTE, based on official 2022 FTE enrollment. According to data from the IPEDS, in FY 2022, small IHEs had, on average, total revenues of approximately $8,691,634. [ 42 ] Therefore, the Department estimates that the proposed regulations could generate a net cost for small IHEs equal to approximately 0.04 of annual revenue.

Table 7—Estimated Net Increase in Costs

Entities by sector	Number of institutions	Average total revenue	Net cost percentage %
Private for-profit, 2-year	431	$4,282,808	0.08
Private for-profit, 4-year or above	238	9,747,215	0.03
Private for-profit, less-than 2-year	1,304	1,751,544	0.19
Private not-for-profit, 2-year	121	3,980,612	0.08
Private not-for-profit, 4-year or above	821	14,778,833	0.02
Private not-for-profit, less-than 2-year	55	1,907,257	0.18
Public, 2-year	365	23,541,752	0.01
Public, 4-year or above	109	33,836,210	0.01
Public, less-than 2-year	218	4,215,979	0.08
Grand Total	3,662	8,691,634	0.04

According to data from IPEDS, approximately 458 small IHEs had total reported annual revenues of less than $597,100 for which the costs estimated above will potentially exceed 1 percent of total revenues. The average enrollment across these 458 small IHEs was 48 students.

The regulations will not conflict with or duplicate existing Federal regulations.

As described in section 5 in the Regulatory Impact Analysis above, “Alternatives Considered”, the Department considered several alternative provisions and approaches but rejected those alternatives for the reasons considered above. Most relevant to small entities were the alternatives to limit proposed changes. For example, under distance education, the Department considered exempting direct assessment programs offered through distance education from the proposed requirement under § 668.22(b)(3)(i)(D) that would require an institution to take attendance for each course offered entirely through distance education. However, the Department rejected this consideration in part because it ultimately would not reduce burden including to small entities since all distance education courses are still required to provide regular and substantive interaction and believes that institutions that offer direct assessment programs through distance education already have systems in place to monitor academic engagement.

Similarly, under R2T4, the Department proposed removing the 49 percent withdrawal exemption, which would in part eliminate observed confusion between this figure and the 60 percent completion requirement under the R2T4 calculation and eliminate the continued need for significant guidance and training on how to determine whether a student qualifies for the exemption, thereby reducing institutional burden. Negotiators, however, disagreed stating that institutions had already updated systems and policies to account for the exemption and that it was serving students well. As a result, the Department eliminated the proposal.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) ( 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A) ). This helps ensure that the public understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.

Proposed §§ 668.22 and 668.41 contain information collection requirements. Under the PRA, the Department has or will at the required time submit a copy of these sections and Information Collection requests to OMB for its review. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number. In the final regulations, we would display the control numbers assigned by OMB to any information collection requirements proposed in this NPRM and adopted in the final regulations.

Section 668.22 Treatment of title IV funds when a student withdraws.

Requirements: Proposed § 668.22(b)(3)(ii) would require institutions to take attendance in distance education courses, which would require schools to use actual attendance data to determine a student's withdrawal date for students enrolled entirely in online courses for a particular payment period or period of enrollment. The requirement would not apply to dissertation research courses that are part of a doctoral program. The Department believes that this change would improve Return of title IV funds (R2T4) calculations, limit instances of inaccurate calculations by schools, and better protect student and taxpayer funds. Regarding distance education courses, institutions can often easily determine when students stop attending because a school's systems can often identify when students submit assignments or interact with instructors and students during lectures and course discussions, and students are often continuously monitored to track academic engagement. Also, some institutions with online courses are already required to take attendance in certain situations as described under 34 CFR 668.22(b)(3) .

Burden Calculation: The proposed regulatory change would add a burden for institutions. The Award Year 2022 IPEDS reporting has 3,732 institutions offering one or more distance education courses. The Department estimates that each of the institutions would be required to do an initial review of their distance education system to ensure that attendance is being collected and potentially develop or add attendance Start Printed Page 60283 taking to the system. The Department expects that this would require an average of 10 hours per institution as a one-time burden. The Department estimates it would take 684 Proprietary institutions 6,840 hours to perform this review function (684 institutions × 10 hours = 6,840 hours). The Department estimates it would take 1,414 Private institutions 14,140 hours to perform this review function (1,414 × 10 hours = 14,140). The Department estimates it would take 1,634 Public institutions 16,340 hours to perform this review function (1,634 × 10 hours = 16,340).

Due to the highly automated delivery of these types of courses, and the availability of such coursework on a daily basis, the Department estimates half of the institutions offering distance education courses would already be performing this task. Therefore, the Department estimates it would take the remaining fifty percent of institutions offering distance education about 10 minutes on a daily basis to capture attendance information for their records. The Department estimates it would take 342 Proprietary institutions 21,221 hours annually to perform this recordkeeping function (684/2 institutions × 365 days × .17 (10 minutes) = 21,221 hours). The Department estimates it would take 707 Private institutions 43,869 hours annually to perform this recordkeeping function (1,414/2 × 365 × .17 (10 minutes) = 43,869). The Department estimates it would take 817 Public institutions 50,695 hours annually to perform this recordkeeping function (1,634/2 × 365 × .17 (10 minutes) = 50,695). The total estimated burden to be added to OMB Control Number 1845-0022 is 153,105 hours.

Student Assistance General Provisions—1845-0022

Affected entity	Respondent	Responses	Burden hours	Cost $49.33 per entity
Proprietary	684	125,514	28,061	$1,384,249
Private non-profit	1,414	259,469	58,009	2,861,584
Public	1,634	299,839	67,035	3,306,836
Total	3,732	684,822	153,105	7,552,669

Section 668.41 Reporting and disclosure of information.

Requirements: The Department proposes adding a new paragraph § 668.41(h) that would require institutions to report their enrollment in distance education or correspondence courses. The Department expects that this provision would be implemented no earlier than July 1, 2026. This change would provide the Department with expanded information to better answer questions about college access, persistence, and success, and to better inform student-centered policies. This reporting requirement also would improve the Department's ability to determine whether institutions have reached the 50 percent threshold for distance education enrollment. When institutions enroll at least 50 percent of their students in distance education, offer at least 50 percent of their courses, or 50 percent of a program via distance education, they must obtain further accreditor approval beyond the initial approval to deliver distance education programs.

Burden Hours: The proposed regulatory change would add a burden for institutions. Because we expect to delay implementation of this new requirement until at least July 1, 2026, we are not estimating the implementation burden at this time. As development of the reporting mechanism progresses, a separate information collection will be submitted for full public comment closer to implementation of the data collection, incorporating more useful and specific information.

Consistent with the discussions above, the following chart describes the sections of the proposed regulations involving information collections, the information being collected and the collections that the Department would submit to OMB for approval and public comment under the PRA, and the estimated costs associated with the information collections. The monetized net cost of the increased burden for institutions, lenders, guaranty agencies and students, using wage data developed using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. For institutions the Department is using the median hourly wage for Education Administrators, Postsecondary, $49.33 per hour according to BLS. https://www.bls.gov/​oes/​current/​oes119033.htm .

Collection of Information

Regulatory section	Information collection	OMB control number and estimated burden	Estimated cost $49.33 per entity
§ 668.22	Proposed § 668.22(b)(3)(ii) would require institutions with distance education courses to take attendance for each course offered entirely through distance education, except for dissertation research courses that are part of a doctoral program	1845-0022; 153,105 hours	$7,552,669
§ 668.41	The Department proposes adding a new paragraph (h) that would require institutions to report their enrollment in distance education or correspondence courses. The Department plans to implement this provision no earlier than July 1, 2026	None—will develop closer to implementation

Total Burden Hours and Change in Burden Hours Associated With Each OMB Control Number Affected by the Proposed Regulations in 1845-0022

Control No.Total burden hoursChange in burden hours1845-00222,738,785+153,105Total2,738,785+153,105

The Department has prepared the Information Collection Request for the information collection requirement. If you wish to review and comment on the Information Collection Requests, please follow the instructions in the ADDRESSES section of this notification.

In preparing your comments, you may want to review the Information Collection Request, including the supporting materials, in www.regulations.gov by using the Docket ID number specified in this notification Docket ED-2024-OPE-0050. This proposed collection is identified as proposed collection, 1845-0022.

Note: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in OMB and the Department review all comments posted at www.regulations.gov .

This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79 . One of the objectives of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

In accordance with section 411 of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4 , the Secretary particularly requests comments on whether these proposed regulations would require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.

Executive Order 13132 requires us to provide meaningful and timely input by State and local elected officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. “Federalism implications” means substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed regulations do not have Federalism implications.

Accessible Format: On request to one of the program contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov . At this site you can view this document, as well as all other Department documents published in the Federal Register , in text or in Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available at no cost to the user at the site.

You may also access Department documents published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov . Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

• Colleges and universities
• Foreign relations
• Grant programs—education
• Loan programs—education
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Selective Service System
• Student aid
• Vocational education
• Education of disadvantaged
• Elementary and secondary education
• Administrative practice and procedure
• Consumer protection

Miguel A. Cardona,

Secretary of Education.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of Education proposes to amend parts 600, 643, 644, 645, and 668 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001 , 1002 , 1003 , 1088 , 1091 , 1094 , 1099b , and 1099c , unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 600.2 is amended by:

a. In the definition of Additional location, adding paragraph (3).

b. In the definition of Clock hour, revising paragraph (1)(iv).

c. Adding, in alphabetical order, a definition of Distance education course.

The revision and additions read as follows:

Additional location:

(3) A virtual location through which the institution offers 100 percent of an educational program through distance education or correspondence courses, notwithstanding requirements for students to complete on-campus or residential periods of 90 days or less.

Clock hour:

(iv) In distance education, 50 to 60 minutes in a 60-minute period of attendance in a synchronous class, lecture, or recitation where there is opportunity for direct interaction between the instructor and students.

Distance education course: A course in which instruction takes place exclusively as described in the definition of distance education in this section notwithstanding in-person non-instructional requirements, including orientation, testing, academic support services, or residency experiences.

3. The authority citation for part 643 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-12 , unless otherwise noted.

4. Section 643.3 is amended by:

a. Removing the word “or” at the end of paragraph (a)(1)(iv).

b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(1)(v) and adding, in its place, “; or”.

c. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(vi).

The addition reads as follows:

(vi) If an individual does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(i) through (v) of this section, then the individual is enrolled in or seeks to enroll in a high school in the United States, territories, or Freely Associated States.

5. The authority citation for part 644 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-16 , unless otherwise noted.

6. Section 644.3 is amended by:

7. The authority citation for part 645 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-13 , unless otherwise noted.

8. Section 645.3 is amended by:

a. Removing the periods at the end of paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and adding semicolons in their place.

b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(5) and adding, in its place, “; or”.

c. Adding paragraph (a)(6).

(6) If an individual does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) through (5) of this section, then the individual is enrolled in or seeks to enroll in a high school in the United States, territories, or Freely Associated States, and provided that such individual is not eligible for a direct cash stipend.

9. The authority citation for part 668 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001-1003 , 1070g , 1085 , 1088 , 1091 , 1092 , 1094 , 1099c , 1099c-1 , 1221e-3 , and 1231a , unless otherwise noted.

10. Section 668.3 is amended by:

a. Adding “credit-hour” before “program” in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A).

b. Removing “program” and adding, in its place, “credit-hour program offered” in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B).

11. Section 668.21 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to read as follows:

(ii) For remaining amounts of FFEL or Direct Loan funds disbursed directly to the student for that payment period or period of enrollment, including funds that are disbursed directly to the student by the lender for a study-abroad program in accordance with § 682.207(b)(1)(v)(C)(1) or for a student enrolled in a foreign school in accordance with § 682.207(b)(1)(v)(D), the institution is not responsible for returning the funds, but must immediately notify the lender or the Secretary, as appropriate, when it becomes aware that the student will not or has not begun attendance so that the lender or Secretary will initiate borrower repayment under the terms of their promissory note; and

12. Section 668.22 is amended by:

a. Removing “and” at the end of paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A)( 4 ).

b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A)( 5 ) and adding, in its place, “; and”.

c. Adding new paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) (6).

d. Revising paragraph (b)(2).

e. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) through (iv) as paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) through (v).

f. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3)(ii).

g. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(vii), (f)(1)(ii)(A), and (l)(9).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

(6) A student is not considered to have withdrawn if—

(i) The institution's records treat a student as having never attended courses for that payment period or period of enrollment;

(ii) The institution returns all the title IV grant or loan assistance disbursed to the student for that payment period or period of enrollment;

(iii) The institution refunds all institutional charges to the student for the payment period or period of enrollment; and

(iv) The institution writes off or cancels any current year balance owed by the student to the institution due to the institution's returning of title IV funds to the Department.

(2) An institution must, within 14 days of a student's last date of attendance, document a student's withdrawal date determined in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section and maintain the documentation as of the date of the institution's determination that the student withdrew.

(3) * * * Start Printed Page 60286

(ii) An institution must take attendance for each course offered entirely through distance education as defined in 34 CFR 600.2 , except for dissertation research courses that are part of a doctoral program.

(vii) Except for a clock-hour or non-term credit hour program, a subscription-based program, or an eligible prison education program, upon the student's return from the leave of absence, the student is permitted to complete the coursework he or she began prior to the leave of absence; and

(ii) (A) In the case of a program that is measured in clock hours, by dividing the total number of clock hours in the payment period or period of enrollment into the number of clock hours scheduled to be completed since the student began attendance in the payment period or period of enrollment as of the student's withdrawal date.

(9) A student in a program offered in modules is scheduled to complete the days in a module only when a student begins attendance in the module.

13. Amend § 668.41 by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:

(h) Reporting of student enrollment in distance education or correspondence courses. For each recipient of title IV, HEA assistance at the institution, the institution must report to the Secretary, in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary, the recipient's enrollment in distance education or correspondence courses.

1.   https://www2.ed.gov/​policy/​highered/​reg/​hearulemaking/​2023/​program-integrity-and-institutional-quality-session-1-issue-paper-distance-education-final.pdf .

2.   https://www.federalregister.gov/​documents/​2020/​09/​02/​2020-18636/​distance-education-and-innovation .

3.  Program Reviews— https://studentaid.gov/​data-center/​school/​fines-and-findings ; Annual Top Ten School Findings— https://studentaid.gov/​data-center/​school/​program-reviews .

4.   88 FR 17777 .

5.   https://www.federalregister.gov/​documents/​2020/​09/​02/​2020-18636/​distance-education-and-innovation .

6.  See the 2024 NACCAS handbook here (as of June 13, 2024): https://naccas.org/​naccas-handbook .

7.   https://www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/​sites/​default/​files/​2022-06/​Process_​Evaluation_​of_​the_​Integration_​of_​Title_​I_​and_​Title_​II.pdf ; https://www.newamerica.org/​education-policy/​reports/​five-things-policymakers-should-know-about-short-term-credentials/​5-students-think-hands-on-training-is-useful-but-few-adults-with-short-term-certificates-receive-this-training .

8.   https://journals.lww.com/​jehp/​fulltext/​2021/​10000/​why_​people_​are_​becoming_​addicted_​to_​social_​media_​.223.aspx .

9.   https://journals.lww.com/​jehp/​fulltext/​2021/​10000/​why_​people_​are_​becoming_​addicted_​to_​social_​media_​.223.aspx .

10.   https://fsapartners.ed.gov/​knowledge-center/​library/​dear-colleague-letters/​2023-05-18/​accreditation-and-eligibility-requirements-distance-education .

11.   https://fsapartners.ed.gov/​knowledge-center/​library/​dear-colleague-letters/​2023-05-18/​accreditation-and-eligibility-requirements-distance-education .

12.   https://www.federalregister.gov/​documents/​2022/​10/​28/​2022-23078/​pell-grants-for-prison-education-programs-determining-the-amount-of-federal-education-assistance .

13.   https://www.federalregister.gov/​documents/​2020/​09/​02/​2020/​18636/​distance-education-and-innovation .

14.   https://fsapartners.ed.gov/​knowledge-center/​library/​dear-colleague-letters/​2023-05-18/​accreditation-and-eligibility-requirements-distance-education .

15.   https://fsapartners.ed.gov/​knowledge-center/​library/​dear-colleague-letters/​2023-05-18/​accreditation-and-eligibility-requirements-distance-education .

16.   https://www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/​sites/​default/​files/​2022/​06/​Process_​Evaluation_​of_​the_​Integration_​of_​Title_​I_​and_​Title_​II.pdf ; https://www.newamerica.org/​education-policy/​reports/​five-things-policymakers-should-know-about-short-term-credentials/​ .

17.   https://journals.lww.com/​jehp/​fulltext/​2021/​10000/​why_​people_​are_​becoming_​addicted_​to_​social_​media_​.223.aspx .

18.   https://journals.lww.com/​jehp/​fulltext/​2021/​10000/​why_​people_​are_​becoming_​addicted_​to_​social_​media_​.223.aspx .

19.   https://www.federalregister.gov/​documents/​2022/​10/​28/​2022-23078/​pell-grants-for-prison-education-programs-determining-the-amount-of-federal-education-assistance .

20.  Distance Education and Innovation—final regulations: https://www.federalregister.gov/​documents/​2020/​09/​02/​2020-18636/​distance-education-and-innovation .

21.  For this ten-year table, a positive figure indicates a cost while a negative figure indicates net benefits.

22.  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2023 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Sector 61-Educational Services, https://www.bls.gov/​oes/​current/​oes_​nat.htm (last modified Apr. 3, 2024).

23.  For this ten-year table, a positive figure indicates a cost while a negative figure indicates net benefits.

24.  How Many Unauthorized Immigrants Graduate from U.S. High Schools Annually? ( migrationpolicy.org ).

25.  How Many Unauthorized Immigrants Graduate from U.S. High Schools Annually? ( migrationpolicy.org )

26.  This calculation of additional capacity excludes projects that met or exceeded their enrollment goals (`funded to serve” column figures).

27.  California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Arizona, Maryland, Washington, Colorado, Nevada, and Massachusetts.

28.  Includes Upward Bound Math & Science.

29.  Instit. of Educ. Sci., Nat'l Ctr. for Educ. Statistics, Postsecondary Education, Immediate College Enrollment Rate, https://nces.ed.gov/​programs/​coe/​indicator/​cpa (last updated May 2023).

30.  According 2018-2019 data, 36% of EOC participants were between the age of 19 and 27 and 37% of EOC participants were 28 years or older.

31.  Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment, 2023. “Education pays”: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ( bls.gov ).

32.  This total is calculated by subtracting the unemployment rate from the number of individuals and multiplying that figure by the median weekly earnings. IE. (1052-35) * $992 = 1,008,864.

33.  Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment, 2023. “Education pays”: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ( bls.gov ).

34.  Price of Attending an Undergraduate Institution ( ed.gov ).

35.  Average net price of attendance is calculated as the average total cost of attendance minus average grant and scholarship aid.

36.   https://journals.lww.com/​jehp/​fulltext/​2021/​10000/​why_​people_​are_​becoming_​addicted_​to_​social_​media_​.223.aspx .

37.  Annual Top Ten School Findings and School Fine Reports: https://studentaid.gov/​data-center/​school/​fines-and-findings .

38.  For additional background on the Department's justification for using an enrollment-based size standard, see “Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program” proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2018, 83 FR 37242 , and final rule, published in the Federal Register on September 23, 2019, 84 FR 49788 ; and “Gainful Employment” final rule published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2019, 84 FR 31392 . The Department notes that the alternative size standards that are used in this NPRM are identical to the alternative size standards used in the GE regulations published in the Federal Register on October 10, 2023. See 88 FR 70175 .

39.  In regulations prior to 2016, the Department categorized small businesses based on tax status. Those regulations defined “nonprofit organizations” as “small organizations” if they were independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation, or as “small entities” if they were institutions controlled by governmental entities with populations below 50,000. Those definitions resulted in the categorization of all private nonprofit organizations as small and no public institutions as small. Under the previous definition, proprietary institutions were considered small if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation with total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Using FY 2017 IPEDs finance data for proprietary institutions, 50 percent of 4-year and 90 percent of 2-year or less proprietary institutions would be considered small. By contrast, an enrollment-based definition applies the same metric to all types of institutions, allowing consistent comparison across all types.

40.  In those prior rules, at least two-year but less-than-four-years institutions were considered in the broader two-year category. In this proposed rule, after consulting with the SBA Office of Advocacy, we separate this group into its own category. Based on this consultation, we have also increased the enrollment threshold for less-than-two-year institutions from 500 to 750 in order to treat a similar number of institutions as small under the alternative enrollment standard as would be captured under a revenue standard.

41.  2022 IPEDS downloaded from https://nces.ed.gov/​ipeds/​datacenter/​DataFiles.aspx .

42.  Based on data reported for FY 2022 for “total revenue and other additions” for public institutions and “total revenues and investment return” for private not-for-profit and private for-profit institutions.

[ FR Doc. 2024-16102 Filed 7-23-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P

• Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

• About This Site
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• Continuity Information

One Tech Tip: To hide your internet activity or your IP address, use a virtual private network

On the move and looking for an internet connection

LONDON — On the move and looking for an internet connection to check email or post a video to TikTok? It’s tempting to jump onto the free Wi-Fi at the coffee shop or the shopping mall. But don’t do it unless you’ve got protection.

Using unsecured internet access can be risky. Hackers can secretly put themselves between you and the internet and view everything you do online, slip malware onto your device or even set up a rogue hotspot that looks authentic. It’s one of those times when it’s best to use a virtual private network, or VPN.

VPNs should be a part of most people’s internet security toolbox. For rookie users, they can initially seem technically bewildering.

What's a VPN?

A virtual private network is a service that hides your online activity from anyone else on the internet. A VPN encrypts your traffic data, which prevents anyone else from being able to read it, and routes it through private tunnels to secure servers around the world.

If normal internet use is like a passing city bus, then using a VPN is like riding in a limo with tinted windows. Anyone can see the bus’s passengers and its destination sign. The limo, meanwhile, reveals little to people on the street about what it’s carrying or where it’s going.

Why do I need to use a VPN?

Privacy is one of the main reasons. If you connect to a free public Wi-Fi network, like at a hotel lobby or coffee shop, using a VPN will prevent anyone from electronically eavesdropping on you.

You can also use it at home if you don’t want your internet service provider to know what you’re doing. But if that’s not a concern, then you probably don’t need to as long as your network is password protected.

Another big reason for a VPN is to “spoof” your location, and make it appear like your phone or computer is elsewhere. Pick from a list of countries where your VPN provider has servers and presto, you’ve got a different IP address that makes a website think you’re in, say, Singapore or Germany instead of at your desk in New York or on your phone in London. Now you can access localized versions of websites or stream video only available in a particular country.

VPNs also help people evade censorship in countries with tight internet controls .

Just remember a VPN won’t hide everything. If you’re logging into your Gmail account, for example, Google will still know who you’re emailing.

Aren't VPNs illegal?

VPNs are perfectly legal in most countries. However, they are outlawed or restricted in places where the authorities control internet access or carry out online surveillance and censorship, such as North Korea and China.

How do I choose a VPN?

There are dozens if not hundreds of available VPN services, but not all are credible. Experts warn that some could be run by shady operators.

Start with tech review websites that have tested and analyzed their privacy policies, encryption practices, ease of use, speed, price and other categories. Some review sites rank VPNs according to specific uses like streaming.

Some better-known or established providers include NordVPN, Mullvad, Proton, Surfshark, ExpressVPN and Private Internet Access.

There are a few key features to look out for.

One is a “kill switch” that halts all internet traffic if the VPN’s connection goes down, preventing stray bits of data from getting out.

“The kill switch is a pretty powerful security feature,” because it will never leave you exposed, said Paul Bischoff, security and privacy advocate at consumer research group Comparitech. But he said some find it annoying because, for example, if your phone switches networks, your connection will go down briefly.

Experts also recommend VPNs with a “no-logging” guarantee. It’s a promise that none of your online activity will be recorded. But it’s not easy for an ordinary user to verify whether the VPN operator is fulfilling such promises, so look for audits by third-party inspectors.

Expect to pay a monthly fee to use the most reputable VPNs.

What about free VPNs?

Experts warn against using free VPNs because many offer sub-par security or could be harvesting your data.

Bischoff warned some free VPNs could be from rogue operators who disclose little information about who’s behind them or the security they’re using.

“Some of them are straight up malware,” Bischoff said. They might inject ads into your browsing or not be able to unblock many streaming services. Free VPNs also tend to be slower because they “usually have too many users on too few servers,” he said.

Some reputable VPNs provide a free version, but they typically come with restrictions such as limiting use to one device or a cap on data. They’re a good option if you only need to occasionally browse privately.

Isn't it hard to install and set up a VPN?

You can install a VPN on your computer just like any other piece of software, or on your smartphone as an app. Or you can add it to your browser as a plugin.

Take note that a VPN plugin is mainly useful for quick browsing sessions and helps to block ads and trackers, while computer-based VPNs will cover all your online traffic, giving you more comprehensive protection.

Aren't there a lot of technical settings?

Most VPNs “usually come with pretty secure options straight out of the box,” said Bischoff.

“Usually you can just open it and install it and then set it and forget it.”

One important choice you’ll need to pay attention to is the VPN protocol, which is the set of rules on how data is encrypted and sent over the network.

Most VPN services let you choose one of several protocols. Two of the most widely used are WireGuard, which has speedy connections that make it good for streaming, and OpenVPN, which supports strong encryption and is highly customizable. Both are considered safe and secure.

Are there any downsides?

VPNs tend to reduce your internet browsing speed slightly because all that data has to be encrypted when it goes out and then decrypted when it arrives, which takes a bit of extra time. Bischoff estimates a VPN slows your internet speed by about 5-10%.

You might also encounter more captchas — puzzles designed to weed out bots — or even be blocked by some websites. That’s because cybercriminals often use VPNs to conduct their crimes, which leads to their IP addresses getting blacklisted, Bischoff said, adding that’s more common with free VPNs.

Comparitech’s research has found that some streaming sites are more aggressive at blocking VPN traffic, particularly sports site DAZN and the BBC’s iPlayer service.

Is there a tech challenge you need help figuring out? Write to us at [email protected] with your questions.