July 26, 2023
For a poster child of unintended consequences in rulemaking, look no further than the Education Department’s haphazard and potentially devastating campaign to restrict the involvement of Online Program Managers (OPMs) in higher education.
In February, the Education Department announced several actions against OPMs, most significantly new guidance upending the regulatory foundation that has enabled them to drive innovation and equity in higher education. That effort triggered widespread backlash across the space and has since been delayed, but the Department has made clear their intention to publish amended guidance with the same end goal – to significantly limit partnerships between OPMs and institutions of higher education.
If you ask the Department, their crackdown on OPMs is intended to have a positive impact on higher education. But good intentions or not – this is a dangerous mission with huge ramifications for American students and institutions alike.
Online Program Managers are private companies with whom colleges and universities partner to develop and scale innovative and accessible online learning offerings – a feat that simply isn’t possible for institutions acting independently. Over the last decade, OPM’s role in American higher education has grown exponentially as student demand for online education has increased and more and more institutions have integrated corresponding programs into their offerings.
Students have been the primary beneficiary of these partnerships, which empower them to attain high-quality education at lower cost and with greater flexibility than traditional, in-person learning permits. Online education has been particularly beneficial for non-traditional students who due to disability, geography, professional or personal obligations, and any number of other reasons struggle in traditional classroom settings.
The benefits of OPMs are clear. What’s not clear, however, is the logic behind advancing new guidance that, in practice, would significantly limit the ability of colleges and universities to partner with OPMs.
I’d be hard pressed to define any regulatory process as exemplary, but the Education Department’s perfunctory approach to this sweeping overhaul of the American higher education system is particularly glaring.
The negotiated rulemaking process – adhered to by all federal agencies as standard practice –– has in this instance been sidestepped entirely. Evidence and empirical backing are typically must-haves for new rules and regulations, but comprehensive data has been wholly absent from the Education Department’s approach to what amounts to a de facto ban on OPMs.
Instead of good data, the Education Department has opted to rely on flawed assumptions to advance a pre-ordained agenda. They assert that OPMs have driven higher student debt, when in reality the opposite is true. At schools where 80% of students take only online courses, student median federal loan debt is $10,638. At schools with no online focus, median debt is nearly double at $18,750. What’s more, without OPMs, the upfront costs of deploying online programs would be prohibitive for all but the wealthiest of universities, in turn making education less accessible to all but the most privileged students.
Advocates of more stringent regulation argue that the proliferation of OPMs has led to lower-quality education. This is also untrue. Not only do students give online education glowing reviews, but OPMs have been a core driver of innovation and advances in education technology, making the system better every day.
The Department’s assumptions simply don’t hold water, which should concern anyone who cares about the future of American higher education and the efficacy of our federal agencies.
Bad actors exist in every sector, and higher education is no exception to that rule. Some online programs have not yielded the outcomes that students and institutions are right to expect. But the solution to this problem isn’t to smother an entire industry or to deprive institutions of the ability to choose how and with whom they partner. Simple transparency will go a long way toward addressing the issues identified by the Department. Leading OPMs like 2U and Academic Partnerships already publish annual reports with this information. Others can and should do the same.
Regulatory bodies were never intended to be used as cudgels to punish entire sectors for the actions of a few bad actors. If the Department’s goal is to strengthen the American education system, the path forward should be defined by transparency and candor – not restrictive and ill-informed new guidance.
.
