More than half of students take at least one course online, and many take more. Because of overregulation from the U.S. Department of Education, Pennsylvania students stand to lose federal aid for many of these courses.

The Education Department wants to remove asynchronous learning — online courses that allow students to complete class requirements on their own time — from the bureaucratic definition of a “clock hour” of learning. This move would make these unique, student-centric courses ineligible for federal aid.

Asynchronous learning doesn’t follow the traditional in-person educational model. Rather than attend class at a specific time, students complete coursework on their own schedule. Instead of live lectures, asynchronous learning often uses pre-recorded lectures and lessons given through other media students absorb at their convenience.

It works

Despite this unique, self-paced environment, asynchronous courses have the core features of a traditional in-person class. Students still have an instructor, engage with classmates, do homework, and receive a final grade.

And it works, too. Carnegie Mellon University, a leader in evidence-based approaches to online learning, continuously studies and improves its asynchronous courses. Its research showed that students “performed as well or better than students in traditional instructor-led classes.” Other scholars, meanwhile, have developed best practices to optimize these learning environments.

Moreover, asynchronous courses are in high demand. A nationwide survey found that more students preferred fully online asynchronous learning over synchronous in-person and online alternatives. Asynchronous learning is everywhere in Pennsylvania, from community colleges to top research universities.

The department is supposed to stay out of colleges’ curricular and pedagogical decisions. What and how a university teaches are core elements of academic freedom. Simply put, the department’s attempt to defund asynchronous learning is an unfounded, gross overreach.

By law, this area of regulation requires the department to negotiate with stakeholders, such as colleges and their partners in online program management.

In 2020, under the previous administration, the agreed consensus was that the definition of “clock hour” should include asynchronous learning. This decision was primarily “to account for innovations in the delivery models used by institutions,” especially during the Covid-19 pandemic response.

Abandoned consensus

This time, though, the department renegotiated and abandoned the consensus. Even worse, the department gave the public only 30 days to comment on the new rule, sidestepping the fairer standard of at least 60 days.

Thankfully, the Defense of Freedom Institute objected, noting that the new regulation conflicts with what’s best for students. Potential litigation can use this comment to fight the rule.

Students who lose asynchronous access may not finish college at all. Since asynchronous courses have lower overhead, universities can apply discounts to them to offer more affordable options for price-sensitive students.

Many nontraditional and first-generation students — two groups less likely to graduate because of cost — rely substantially on asynchronous online learning. Without federal aid, these students would have even fewer options.

The timing is also terrible. Pennsylvania colleges and universities, already struggling to survive, cannot bear additional administrative costs and the loss of tuition from asynchronous courses.

In the past year, four private Pennsylvania universities closed their doors. This federal overreach, which hinders academic innovations and impedes schools from cost-effectively serving more students, will fuel more closures.

Why does the Education Department privilege physical locations with traditional lectures over online education? One reason is that some online providers are for-profit, and the current administration has an anti-market, anti-profit orientation.

Many small, private universities could not offer high-quality online courses without their for-profit online program management partners (OPMs).

Negative regulations

Last year, the department proposed vague regulatory language that would have negatively affected OPMs and the more than 550 colleges that use them.

Carnegie Mellon objected to the proposal, claiming it was “in direct conflict with higher education institutions’ goals to create more innovative and engaging learning experiences for their students.” The department’s policy “restricts available edtech options” and “ultimately shrinks the educational innovations reaching students.”

After facing a lawsuit, the Department of Education announced it would abandon that language on Oct. 21. Let’s hope the department finally stops its opposition to asynchronous learning.

Elizabeth Stelle is the director of policy analysis at the Commonwealth Foundation. Her previous article was “The DEP won’t use the people who can solve the problem.” Adam Kissel is a senior fellow at the Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy.

This article was originally published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.