Universities Hit Back Against Proposed Online Attendance Policy

Hundreds of professors, colleges and higher ed organizations have expressed sharp criticism of the Department of Education’s proposed regulations for online courses, saying they stem from an antiquated mindset about new modalities—and place a time burden on professors and a financial burden on institutions.

Last month, the Department of Education asked for input on the proposed regulations; the comment period closed this past Friday. If the proposal is finalized before Nov. 1, it will be implemented by July 2026 at the earliest.

The attendance policy is one small portion of the new rule, which is part of a larger package of federal policies designed to protect students and hold institutions accountable for the financial aid dollars they receive.

The new regulations also propose to create a virtual location for colleges to better track distance education students, roll back a 2020 ruling that allowed asynchronous learning activities to count toward the “clock hours” required in distance education courses and expand eligibility to the TRIO program, which offers college-prep programs.

While those proposals brought their own set of critics, the majority of comments focused on the proposed attendance policy. Every 14 days, students would be expected to turn in an assignment or interact with a professor or fellow students during their online lectures and course discussions, although the department has yet to define exactly how colleges are expected to report on the students’ attendance.

The department says the policy would provide a more accurate accounting of when students drop out of courses. The proposal is aimed at preventing institutions from collecting federal Title IV financial aid funds for students who’ve dropped out.

Pushback Across the Board

Large university systems including those in California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin all said that while they appreciate the department’s efforts to curb bad actors, they worry about the attendance policy.

“We understand and support the department’s interest in taking attendance and withdrawing students in a timely manner to ensure that Title IV funds are not wasted or abused,” said Nicholas Jones, executive vice president at the University of Illinois system. “However, we disagree with the blanket approach that punishes students and legitimate institutions. It would unnecessarily shift resources to address these regulatory demands instead of focusing on what matters: students and their success.”

The University of California system suggested more “clear and consistent guidance” on how institutions would have to adhere to the rule. Yvette Gullatt, vice president for UC’s graduate and undergraduate affairs, added that the proposed change could have unintended consequences—namely that fewer online or hybrid courses will be offered, which could particularly hurt lower-income students who are looking for more flexible, affordable course options.

“Future education program innovation from our faculty in pursuing economic justice will be halted due to these proposed provisions,” Gullatt said on behalf of the UC system.

Boise State University said the regulations “reveal a bias against online education.”

“We recognize that the department’s proposed regulations may be in response to instances where other institutions employed inadequate practices that failed to protect students as consumers,” the university wrote. “But such failures exist with face-to-face programs—especially with for-profit providers. Why is the department focusing on … online programming?”

Community colleges in more than a dozen states cited similar concerns, pointing toward the large number of their students who take online or hybrid courses.

The proposed rule “asserts without providing explicit evidence that the documentation of withdrawals is a greater problem in distance education courses than for in-person classes,” said the American Association of Community Colleges. “On this shaky policy foundation, ED is proposing to impose a sweeping compliance burden on institutions that outweighs the possible benefit.”

Several organizations said that they appreciate the efforts the Education Department is attempting to take—but they think this guidance is misplaced.

“We believe finding the right balance” between flexibility and innovation “is critically important,” wrote the Association for Career and Technology Education. “Unfortunately, ED’s new proposed definition for distance education would move in the opposite direction.”

Other higher ed groups, including the left-leaning think tank New America, hit back at assertions that the attendance policy would put an undue burden on the institutions. They said the changes could be accomplished by modifying the reporting requirements in the already-existing National Student Loan Data System.

“No one … who cares about students should be opposed to having better information to understand how students fare and how institutions and policymakers can address potential equity gaps and improve student success,” New America wrote.

U.S. Representative Bobby Scott, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, also applauded the proposed regulations, saying the attendance policy’s data collection could allow a better comparison of the efficacy of online versus in-person programming.

But Virginia Foxx, Republican chair of the House education committee, joined five other GOP members of Congress in blasting a different segment of the regulations: TRIO expansion. In the proposed regulations, TRIO would include students seeking to enroll in a high school in the U.S. or a U.S. territory; some Republicans in Congress are concerned that means it would extend benefits to undocumented immigrants.

“TRIO programs have historically benefitted low-income Americans, first generation college students, and students with disabilities to help close the educational gap and ensure they have the skills needed to succeed in postsecondary education,” the letter states. “The proposed expansion is a blatant attempt to provide additional taxpayer-funded services to those not seeking citizenship in the name of reducing ‘burden.’ The department’s proposed expansion will stretch funding thin and risk those currently eligible for TRIO.”