Distance Education
Growth in Distance Education Programs and Implications for Federal Education Policy Gao ID: GAO-02-1125T September 26, 2002Increasingly, the issues of distance education and federal student aid intersect. About one in every 13 postsecondary students enrolls in at least one distance education course, and the Department of Education estimates that the number of students involved in distance education has tripled in just 4 years. As the largest provider of financial aid to postsecondary students, the federal government has a considerable interest in distance education. Overall, 1.5 million out of 19 million postsecondary students took at least one distance education course in the 1999-2000 school year. The distance education students differ from other postsecondary students in a number of respects. Compared to other students, they tend to be older and are more likely to be employed full-time while attending school part-time. They also have higher incomes and are more likely to be married. Many students enrolled in distance education courses participate in federal student aid programs. As distance education continues to grow, several major aspects of federal laws, rules, and regulations may need to be reexamined. Certain rules may need to be modified if a small, but growing, number of schools are to remain eligible for student aid. Students attending these schools may become ineligible for student aid because their distance education programs are growing and may exceed statutory and regulatory limits on the amount of distance education an institution can offer. In general, students at minority serving institutions use distance education less extensively than students at other schools. Accrediting agencies play an important role in reviewing distance education programs. They, and Education, are "gatekeepers" with respect to ensuring quality at postsecondary institutions--including those that offer distance education programs.
GAO-02-1125T, Distance Education: Growth in Distance Education Programs and Implications for Federal Education Policy
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-1125T
entitled 'Distance Education: Growth in Distance Education Programs and
Implications for Federal Education Policy' which was released on
September 26, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S.
Senate:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m.
Thursday, September 26, 2002:
Distance Education:
Growth in Distance Education Programs and Implications for Federal
Education Policy:
Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
GAO-02-1125T:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I appreciate the opportunity to testify on issues related to distance
education [Footnote 1] and implications for the federal government‘s
student financial aid programs. Increasingly, the issues of distance
education and federal student aid intersect. About 1 in every 13
postsecondary students enrolls in at least one distance education
course, and the Department of Education (Education) estimates that the
number of students involved in distance education has tripled in just 4
years. As the largest provider of financial aid to postsecondary
students, the federal government has a considerable interest in
distance education.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, your Committee and the Ranking Member and
two members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce,
asked us to assess the current status of distance education. We will
issue our final report in September 2003. Today, I will discuss the
early results of our work. My testimony will provide information on (1)
the demographic characteristics of distance education students and the
institutional characteristics of postsecondary schools that offer
distance education; (2) federal student financial aid issues related to
distance education; (3) the use of distance education at Minority
Serving Institutions; [Footnote 2] and (4) the role of accrediting
agencies in reviewing distance education programs. A major part of my
testimony today is based on our analysis of data from the National
Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), [Footnote 3] an Education
database covering more than 19 million postsecondary students. We did
our work from April through September 2002 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
A decade ago, when distance education was largely the province of
correspondence schools, concerns about fraud and abuse by some schools
led the federal government to place restrictions on, among other things,
the percentage of courses an institution could provide by distance
education and still qualify to participate in the federal aid programs
authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA). Now,
however, with distance education growing rapidly and becoming more a
part of mainstream higher education through courses taught by Internet
or videoconferencing, the Congress is reexamining these and other
distance education rules to determine if changes are warranted. The
Congress has also expressed an interest in knowing how Minority Serving
Institutions are using distance education technology. Minority Serving
Institutions offer postsecondary opportunities to nearly 2 million
students and many of these students are first generation college
students.
In summary:
Overall, about 1.5 million out of 19 million postsecondary students
took at least one distance education course in the 1999-2000 school
year. These 1.5 million distance education students differ from other
postsecondary students in a number of respects. Compared to other
students, they tend to be older and are more likely to be employed full-
time and attending school part-time. They also have higher incomes and
are more likely to be married. Most students take distance education
courses at public institutions, with more taking courses from two-year
schools than from four-year schools. The Internet is the most common
mode of delivery for providing distance education.
Many students who take distance education courses participate in federal
student aid programs. About one-third of undergraduates and graduate
students who take all their coursework through distance education
receive Title IV financial aid. As distance education continues to
grow, several major aspects of federal laws, rules, and regulations may
need to be reexamined. Certain rules may need to be modified if a
small, but growing number of schools are to remain eligible for student
aid. Students attending these schools may become ineligible for student
aid because their distance education programs are growing and may
exceed statutory and regulatory limits on the amount of distance
education an institution can offer. Other issues involve how to account
for student participation in distance education and differences in
student aid between some distance education students and classroom
students.
In general, students at Minority Serving Institutions use distance
education less extensively than students at other schools. For example,
undergraduates at Historically Black Colleges and Universities use
distance education at a lower rate than students who attend non-Minority
Serving Institutions. Also, undergraduate Hispanic students attending
Hispanic Serving Institutions use distance education less often than
other students at these institutions.
Accrediting agencies play an important role in reviewing distance
education programs. They, and Education, are the ’gatekeepers“ with
respect to ensuring quality at postsecondary institutions”including
those that offer distance education programs. The HEA allows accrediting
agencies to develop their own standards for ensuring the quality of
education provided by the institutions they accredit. It also gives
Education the authority to recognize those accrediting agencies it
considers to be reliable authorities on the quality of education
provided by the institutions they accredit. Critical issues include how
well the accrediting agencies and Education are carrying out their
responsibilities and whether changes are needed in HEA.
The work that we have yet to complete for our final report will examine
in more detail whether additional actions are needed to enhance access
to higher education while maintaining the integrity of the federal
student aid programs as it relates to distance education.
Background:
Distance education is not a new concept, but in recent years, it has
assumed markedly new forms and greater prominence. Distance
education‘s older form was the correspondence course”a home study
course generally completed by mail. More recently, distance education
has increasingly been delivered in electronic forms, such as
videoconferencing and the Internet. Some of these newer forms share
more features of traditional classroom instruction. For example,
students taking a course by video conference generally participate in
an actual class in which they can interact directly with the
instructor. Many postsecondary schools have added or expanded
electronically-based programs, so that distance education is now
relatively common across the entire postsecondary landscape. We
estimate that in the 1999-2000 school year, about 1.5 million of the 19
million students involved in postsecondary education took at least one
electronically transmitted distance education course. Education reports
that an estimated 84 percent of four-year institutions will offer
distance education courses in 2002.
While newer forms of distance education may incorporate more elements
of traditional classroom education than before, they can still differ
from a traditional educational experience in many ways. For example,
Internet-based distance education, in which coursework is provided
through computer hookup, may substitute a computer screen for face-to-
face interaction between student and instructor. Chat rooms, bulletin
boards, and e-mail become common forms of interaction. Support
services, such as counseling, tutoring, and library services, may also
be provided without any face-to-face contact.
As the largest provider of student financial aid to postsecondary
students (an estimated $52 billion in fiscal year 2002), the federal
government has a substantial interest in the quality of distance
education. Under Title IV of the HEA, the federal government provides
grants, work-study wages, and student loans to millions of students
each year. For the most part, students taking distance education
courses can qualify for this aid in the same way as students taking
traditional courses.
Differences between distance education and traditional education pose
challenges for federal student aid policies and programs. For example,
in 1992, the Congress added requirements to the HEA to deal with
problems of fraud and abuse at correspondence schools”the primary
provider of distance education in the early 1990‘s. [Footnote 4] These
requirements placed limitations on the use of federal student aid at
these schools due to poor quality programs and high default rates on
student loans. Such problems demonstrate why it is important to monitor
the outcomes of such forms of course delivery. In monitoring such
courses, the federal government has mainly relied on the work of
accrediting agencies established specifically for providing outside
reviews of an institution‘s educational programs.
Characteristics of Distance Education Students and Institutions That
Offer Distance Education:
Our analysis of the NPSAS showed that the estimated 1.5 million
[Footnote 5] postsecondary students who have taken distance education
courses have different demographic characteristics when compared with
the characteristics [Footnote 6] of postsecondary students who did not
enroll in distance education. These differences included the following.
Distance education students are older. As figure 1 demonstrates,
students who took all their courses through distance education tended
to be older, on average, when compared to other students.
Figure 1: Distance education students are older:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph illustrating that distance
education students are older. The vertical axis of the graph represents
average age from 0 to 40. The horizontal axis of the graph represents
undergraduate students and graduate students. The following data is
depicted:
Took all distance education courses:
Average age, Undergraduate students: 30;
Average age, Graduate students: 35.
Took no distance education courses:
Average age, Undergraduate students: 26;
Average age, Graduate students: 33.
[End of figure]
Distance education students are more likely to be married. Figure 2
shows that graduate and undergraduate students that took all of their
courses through distance education are more likely to be married than
those taking no distance education courses.
Figure 2: Distance education students are more likely to be married:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph illustrating that distance
education students are more likely to be married. The vertical axis of
the graph represents percentage of married students from 0 to 80. The
horizontal axis of the graph represents undergraduate students and
graduate students.
Took all distance education courses:
Percentage of married students, Undergraduate students: 38;
Percentage of married students, Graduate students: 65.
Took no distance education courses:
Percentage of married students, Undergraduate students: 22;
Percentage of married students, Graduate students: 42.
[End of figure]
Undergraduates taking distance education courses are more likely to be
female. Women represented about 65 percent of the undergraduate
students who took all their courses through distance education. In
contrast, they represented about 56 percent of undergraduates who did
not take a distance education course. For graduate students, there was
no significant difference in the gender of students who took distance
education courses and those who did not.
Distance education students are more likely to work full-time. As
figure 3 shows, a higher percentage of distance education students work
full-time when compared to students who did not take any distance
education courses. This difference was greatest among graduate students
where about 85 percent of the students that took all of their courses
through distance education worked full-time compared to 51 percent of
students who did not take any distance education courses.
Figure 3: Distance education students are more likely to work full-
time:
This figure is a vertical bar graph illustrating that distance
education students are more likely to work full-time. The vertical axis
of the graph represents percentage of students working full-time from 0
to 100. The horizontal axis of the graph represents undergraduate
students and graduate students.
Took all distance education courses:
Percentage of students working full-time, Undergraduate students: 55;
Percentage of students working full-time, Graduate students: 85.
Took no distance education courses:
Percentage of students working full-time, Undergraduate students: 38;
Percentage of students working full-time, Graduate students: 45.
[End of figure]
Distance education students are more likely to be part-time students. As
might be expected, distance education students tend to go to school on a
part-time basis. For undergraduates, about 63 percent of the students
who took all their courses through distance education were part-time
students while about 47 percent of the students who did not take any
distance education courses were part-time students. This trend also
occurred among graduate students (about 79 percent of those who took
their entire program through distance education were part-time students
compared with about 54 percent of those who did not take any distance
education courses).
Distance education students have higher average incomes. Figure 4
shows that in general, graduate students that took distance education
courses tended to have higher average incomes than students that did not
take any distance education courses. We found similar patterns for
undergraduate students.
Figure 4: Distance education students tend to have higher average
incomes:
This figure is a vertical bar graph illustrating that distance
education students tend to have higher average incomes. The vertical
axis of the graph represents income level from $0 to $80,000. The
horizontal axis of the graph represents three categories of class
takers. The following data is depicted:
Took all courses through distance education:
Income level: $65,000;
Took at least one distance education course:
Income level: $58,000;
Took no distance education courses:
Income level: $45,000.
[End of figure]
In addition to the demographic characteristics of distance education
students, NPSAS provides certain insights on the characteristics of
institutions that offer distance education programs. [Footnote 7] Among
other things, it provides data on the modes of delivery that
institutions used to provide distance education and the types of
institutions that offered distance education.
Public institutions enrolled the most distance education students. For
undergraduates, public institutions enrolled more distance education
students than either private non-profit or proprietary institutions. Of
undergraduates who took at least one distance education class, about 85
percent [Footnote 8] did so at a public institution (about 79 percent
of all undergraduates attended public institutions), about 12 percent
did so at private non-profit institutions (about 16 percent of all
undergraduates attended private non-profit institutions), and about 3
percent did so at proprietary schools (about five percent of all
undergraduates attended proprietary schools). For graduate students,
public institutions also enrolled more”about 63.5 percent”distance
education students than private non-profit or proprietary schools (32
and 4.5 percent, respectively). About 58 percent, 40 percent, and two
percent of all graduate students attended public institutions, private
non-profit, and proprietary schools, respectively.
Institutions used the Internet more than any other mode to deliver
distance education. Postsecondary institutions used the Internet more
than any other mode to deliver distance education. At the three main
types of institutions (public, private non-profit, and proprietary
[Footnote 9]), more than half of the undergraduate students who took at
least one distance education course did so over the Internet. Over 58
percent of undergraduate distance education students at public
institutions used the Internet and over 70 percent of undergraduate
distance education students at private non-profit and proprietary
schools also used the Internet. Institutions that offered graduate
programs also used the Internet as the primary means of delivering
distance education courses. For graduate students who took at least one
distance education class, 65 percent of students at public institutions
used the Internet, compared with about 69 percent of students at
private non-profit institutions, and about 94 percent of students at
proprietary institutions.
Institutions enrolled the most distance education students in subjects
related to business, humanities, and education. For undergraduates,
about 21 percent of students who took their entire program through
distance education studied business and 13 percent studied courses
related to the humanities. This is similar to patterns of students who
did not take any distance education classes (about 18 percent studied
business and about 15 percent studied humanities). For graduate
students, about 24 percent of students who took their entire program
through distance education enrolled in courses related to education and
about 19 percent studied business. Again, this is similar to patterns
of graduate students who did not take any distance education classes
(about 23 percent studied education and about 17 percent studied
business).
Growth of Distance Education Affects Federal Student Aid Policies on
Several Fronts:
Federal student aid is an important consideration for many students who
take distance education courses, although not to the same degree as
students in more traditional classroom settings. Students who took their
entire program through distance education applied for student aid at a
lower rate than students who did not take any distance education courses
(about 40 percent compared with about 50 percent), and fewer also
received federal aid (about 31 percent compared with about 39 percent).
Nonetheless, even these lower percentages for distance education
represent a substantial federal commitment. [Footnote 10]
A number of issues related to distance education and the federal student
aid program have surfaced and will likely receive attention when the
Congress considers reauthorization of the HEA or when Education
examines regulations related to distance education. Among them are the
following:
* ’Fifty percent“ rule limits aid to correspondence and
telecommunication students in certain circumstances. One limitation in
the HEA”called the ’50 percent rule“”involves students who attend
institutions that provide half or more of their coursework through
correspondence or telecommunications classes or who have half or more
of their students enrolled in such classes. When institutions exceed
the 50 percent threshold, their students become ineligible to receive
funds from federal student aid programs. As distance education becomes
more widespread, more institutions may lose their eligibility. Our
initial work indicates about 20 out of over 6,000 Title IV-eligible
institutions may face this problem soon or have already exceeded the 50
percent threshold. Without some relief, the students that attend these
institutions may become ineligible for student aid from the federal
government in the future. As an example, one institution we visited
already offers more than half its courses through distance education;
however, it remains eligible for the student aid program because it has
received a waiver from Education‘s Distance Education Demonstration
Program. [Footnote 11] Without a change in the statute or a
continuation of the waiver, more than 900 of its students will not be
eligible for student aid from the federal government in the future.
To deal with this issue, the House passed the Internet Equity and
Education Act of 2001 (H.R. 1992) in October 2001. The House proposal
allows a school to obtain a waiver for the 50 percent rule if it (1) is
already participating in the federal student loan program, (2) has a
default rate of less than 10 percent for each of the last three years
for which data are available, and (3) has notified the Secretary of
Education of its election to qualify for such an exemption, and has not
been notified by the Secretary that such election would pose a
significant risk to federal funds and the integrity of Title IV
programs. The Senate is considering this proposal.
* Federal student aid policies treat living expenses differently for
some distance education students. Currently, students living off-campus
who are enrolled in traditional classes or students enrolled in
telecommunications classes at least half-time can receive an annual
living allowance for room and board costs of at least $1,500 and $2,500,
respectively. Distance learners enrolled in correspondence classes are
not allowed the same allowance. Whether to continue to treat these
distance education students differently for purposes of federal student
aid is an open policy question.
* Regulations Relating to ’Seat“ Time. Institutions offering distance
education courses that are not tied to standard course lengths such as
semesters or quarters have expressed difficulty in interpreting and
applying Education‘s ’seat rules,“ which are rules governing how much
instructional time must be provided in order for participants to
qualify for federal aid. [Footnote 12] In particular, a rule called the
’12-hour rule“ has become increasingly difficult to implement. This
rule was put in place to curb abuses by schools that would stretch the
length of their educational programs without providing any additional
instruction time. Schools would do this to maximize the amount of
federal aid their students could receive and pass back to the school in
the form of tuition and fees. The rule defined each week of instruction
in a program that is not a standard course length as 12 hours of
instruction, examination, or preparation for examinations. Some
distance education courses, particularly self-paced courses, do not
necessarily fit this model. Further, the rule also produces significant
disparities in the amount of federal aid that students receive for
the same amount of academic credit, based simply on whether the
program that they are enrolled in uses standard academic terms or not.
In August 2002, Education proposed replacing the 12-hour rule with a
’one-day rule,“ [Footnote 13] which would require one day of
instruction per week for any course. This rule currently applies to
standard term courses, and as proposed, it would cover, among other
things, nonstandard term courses. Education plans to publish final
regulations that would include this change on or before November 1,
2002. Some institutions that might provide nonstandard distance
education courses remain concerned, however, because Education has not
identified how the ’one-day rule“ will be interpreted or applied.
In considering changes in policy that are less restrictive but that
could improve access to higher education, it will be important to
recognize that doing so may increase the potential for fraud if
adequate management controls are not in place.
Minority Serving Institutions Tend To Use Distance Education Less
Frequently Than Other Schools:
While our work examining the use of distance education at Minority
Serving Institutions (MSIs) is not yet completed, the preliminary data
indicate that MSIs”and more specifically, minority students at MSIs”
make less use of distance education than students at other schools.
NPSAS includes data for a projectable number of students from
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving
Institutions, but it only includes one Tribal College. We plan to send
a questionnaire to officials at all three MSI groups to gain a better
understanding of their use of distance education technology. In the
meantime, however, the available NPSAS data showed the following:
* Students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities tend to use
distance education to a lesser extent than non-MSI students. About 6
percent of undergraduate students at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities enrolled in at least one distance education course and
about 1.1 percent took their entire program through distance education.
These rates are lower than students who took at least one distance
education course or their entire program through distance education at
non-MSIs.
* Hispanic students attending Hispanic Serving Institutions use
distance education at a lower rate than their overall representation in
these schools. About 51 percent of the undergraduates at Hispanic
Serving Institutions are Hispanic, but they comprise only about 40
percent of the undergraduate students enrolled in distance education
classes. This difference is statistically significant. Similarly, our
analysis also shows that the greater the percentage of Hispanic
students at the institution, the lower the overall rate of distance
education use at that school. [Footnote 14]
Since NPSAS includes data from only one Tribal College, we were unable
to develop data on the extent that Tribal College students use distance
education. However, our visits to several Tribal Colleges provide some
preliminary insights. Our work shows that distance education may be a
viable supplement to classroom education at many Tribal Colleges for a
number of reasons. Potential students of many Tribal Colleges live in
communities dispersed over large geographic areas”in some cases
potential students might live over a hundred miles from the nearest
Tribal College or satellite campus”making it difficult or impossible
for some students to commute to these schools. In this case, distance
education is an appealing way to deliver college courses to remote
locations. Additionally, officials at one Tribal College told us that
some residents of reservations may be place-bound due to tribal and
familial responsibilities; distance education would be one of the few
realistic postsecondary education options for this population. Also
important, according to officials from some Tribal Colleges we visited,
tribal residents have expressed an interest in enrolling in distance
education courses.
Effectiveness of Accrediting Agencies Is An Important Distance Education
Issue:
The HEA focuses on accreditation”a task undertaken by outside agencies”
as the main tool for ensuring quality in postsecondary programs,
including those offered through distance education. The effectiveness
of these accreditation reviews, as well as Education‘s monitoring of
the accreditation process, remains an important issue.
To be eligible for federal funds, a postsecondary institution or program
must be accredited by an agency recognized by Education as a reliable
authority on quality. [Footnote 15] Education recognizes 58 separate
accrediting agencies for this purpose, of which only 38 are recognized
for Title IV student aid purposes. The 58 accrediting agencies operate
either regionally or nationally, and they accredit a wide variety of
institutions or programs, including public and private, non-profit two-
year or four-year colleges and universities; graduate and professional
programs; proprietary vocational and technical training programs; and
non-degree training programs. Some accrediting agencies accredit entire
institutions and some accredit specialized programs, departments, or
schools that operate within an institution or as single purpose,
freestanding institutions.
The HEA and regulations issued by Education establish criteria under
which Education will recognize an accreditation agency as a reliable
authority regarding the quality of education. [Footnote 16] The HEA
states that accrediting agencies must assess quality in 10 different
areas, such as curriculum, student achievement, and program length.
Under the HEA, an accrediting agency is required to include distance
education programs when assessing quality. In doing so, an accrediting
agency must consistently apply and enforce its standards with respect
to distance education programs as well as other educational programs at
the institution.
Our analysis in this area is not as far along as it is for the other
topics we are discussing today. We plan to review a number of
accreditation efforts to determine the way in which accrediting
agencies review distance education programs. We expect that our work
will address the following issues:
* How well accrediting agencies are carrying out their responsibilities
for reviewing distance education. The HEA does not contain specific
language setting forth how distance learning should be reviewed.
Instead, it identifies key areas that accrediting agencies should cover,
including student achievement and outcomes, and it relies on
accrediting agencies to develop their own standards for how they will
review distance education programs. We will look at how accrediting
agencies are reviewing distance education programs and the standards
that are being used.
* How well Education is carrying out its responsibilities and whether
improvements are needed in Education‘s policies and procedures for
overseeing accrediting agencies. Under the HEA, Education has
authority to recognize those agencies it considers to be reliable
authorities on the quality of education or training provided.
Accrediting agencies have an incentive to seek Education‘s recognition
because without it, students at the institutions they accredit would
not be eligible to participate in federal aid programs. We will conduct
work to identify what improvements, if any, are needed in Education‘s
oversight of accrediting agencies.
In closing, distance education has grown rapidly over the past few years
and our work indicates that distance learning might present new
educational opportunities for students. Congress and the Administration
need to ensure that changes to the HEA and regulations do not increase
the chances of fraud, waste, or abuse to the student financial aid
programs. At the request of this Committee, and members of the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce, we will continue our study of
the issues that we have discussed today.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be happy to respond to
any questions you or other members of the Committee may have.
[End of section]
Contact and Acknowledgments:
For further information, please contact Cornelia M. Ashby at (202) 512-
8403. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include
Jerry Aiken, Neil Asaba, Kelsey Bright, Julian Fogle, Ellen Habenicht,
Chris Hatscher, Jill Peterson, Stan Stenersen, and Susan Zimmerman.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The Higher Education Act defines distance education as an
educational process where the student is separated in time or place
from the instructor.
[2] We are examining three types of Minority Serving Institutions:
Hispanic Serving Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, and Tribal Colleges. Hispanic Serving Institutions are
defined as having at least 25 percent of its full-time equivalent
students Hispanic, of which no less than 50 percent are low-income
individuals. Historically Black Colleges and Universities are defined
as, among other things, any historically Black college or university
that was established prior to 1964 and whose principal mission was, and
is, the education of Black Americans. A tribally controlled college or
university is an institution which is formally controlled, or has been
formally sanctioned, or chartered, by the governing body of an Indian
tribe or tribes.
[3] The NPSAS is conducted approximately every 3-4 years by the
National Center for Education Statistics in the Department of
Education. It is a nationwide survey designed to collect demographic
information on postsecondary students, as well as information on how
postsecondary students fund their education. The most recent NPSAS
covers students attending over 6,000 Title IV eligible institutions
during the 1999-2000 school year. NPSAS defines distance education as
courses delivered off campus using live, interactive television or
audio; prerecorded television or video; CD-ROM; or a computer-based
system such as, the Internet, e-mail, or chat rooms. NPSAS does not
cover correspondence students.
[4] Title IV of the HEA makes a distinction between students who enroll
in correspondence courses and those who enroll in telecommunications
courses. For example, students enrolled in correspondence courses
cannot be considered more than half-time students for student financial
aid purposes, even though they may be taking a full credit load.
[5] Of the 1.5 million distance education students, 1.26 million were
undergraduates and 272 thousand were graduate students. In total, there
were an estimated 19.2 million postsecondary students, or 16.5 million
undergraduates and 2.7 million graduate students in the 1999-2000
school year.
[6] When we cite differences in student characteristics between
distance education students and students who did not take any distance
education courses, the differences are statistically significant at the
95 percent confidence level.
[7] The design for NPSAS involves selecting a nationally representative
sample of postsecondary education institutions and students within
those institutions. NPSAS data come from multiple sources and includes
a limited amount of data on institutional characteristics. This
information is useful in developing some limited insights on
institutions that offer distance education programs.
[8] Of the 85 percent of undergraduate students who took at least one
distance education course at a public institution, about 55 percent did
so at two-year or less institutions and 30 percent did so at four-year
institutions.
[9] Proprietary schools are for-profit postsecondary institutions. They
can include traditional two- and four-year colleges and universities as
well as trade and technical schools.
[10] Students who took their entire program through distance education
courses received an estimated $763 million in federal student aid in
the1999-2000 school year. Students who took at least one distance
education course may have also received federal student aid; however,
the data sources used by NPSAS do not distinguish between aid awarded
for distance education courses and traditional classroom courses.
[11] The Congress created the Distance Education Demonstration Program
in the 1998 amendments to the HEA to study and test possible solutions
to federal student aid issues related to distance education. The
program has authority to grant waivers on certain statutory or
regulatory requirements related to distance education and federal
student financial aid programs, such as the 50 percent rule.
[12] Under HEA, a student must receive at least 30 weeks of
instructional time in order to be considered a full-time student for
financial aid purposes. For students operating under standard terms
such as semesters, this is relatively easy to translate into semester
hours. A full-time undergraduate attending a school that operated on
the semester system, for example, would need to complete 24 semester
hours to be considered a full-time student.
[13] The Internet Equity and Education Act (H.R. 1992) includes a
similar definition for a week of instruction.
[14] Hispanic Serving Institutions can have between 25 percent and up
to 100 percent Hispanic students. Our analysis compares undergraduate
Hispanic Serving Institutions with less than 50 percent Hispanic
students and Hispanic Serving Institutions with 50 percent or more
Hispanic students. Those institutions with 50 percent or more Hispanic
students had a 4 percent participation rate in distance education;
those institutions with less than 50 percent Hispanic students had a
participation rate of 9.6 percent.
[15] Institutions or programs which have not yet been accredited by a
recognized accrediting agency are also eligible to apply for federal
funds if Education has satisfactory assurance that the institution or
program will meet the recognized accrediting agency‘s standards within
a reasonable time. Such institutions or programs are said to hold
’preaccreditation“ status.
[16] The regulations are contained in 34 CFR Part 602.
[End of section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full-text files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov]:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
