Distance Education
More Data Could Improve Education's Ability to Track Technology at Minority Serving Institutions Gao ID: GAO-03-900 September 12, 2003Distance education--offering courses by Internet, video, or other forms outside the classroom--is a fast growing part of postsecondary education. GAO was asked to review the state of distance education at Minority Serving Institutions, which are schools that serve high percentages of minority students, including Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians. Under Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act, these schools are eligible for grants that can be used for expanding their technology, including distance education. GAO's review focused on (1) the use of distance education at Minority Serving Institutions, (2) key factors influencing these schools' decisions about whether or not to offer distance education, and (3) steps the Department of Education could take, if any, to improve monitoring efforts of technological progress under Titles III and V programs.
There are some variations in the use of distance education at Minority Serving Institutions compared to other schools. For example, while Minority Serving Institutions tend to offer at least one distance education course at the same rate as other schools, they differ in how many courses are offered and which students take the courses. Also, like other schools, larger Minority Serving Institutions tend to offer more distance education than smaller schools, and public schools tend to offer more distance education than private schools. However, Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges generally offer fewer courses than other schools, and a smaller percentage of minority students take such courses. Minority Serving Institutions consider two main factors in deciding whether to offer distance education. The first is distance education's compatibility with the school's preferred teaching method. Many schools that offered no distance education had a strong preference for a classroom-based approach. The second is resources--schools offering little or no distance education had limited technology and support personnel. Also, Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions viewed distance education as a lower priority compared to expanding technology usage in the classroom. By contrast, Tribal Colleges gave distance education higher priority, reflecting the greater geographic dispersion of their students. Education could strengthen its monitoring efforts of the Title III and V programs by expanding its existing system. Currently, the monitoring efforts for tracking the progress of technological improvements are more complete for Hispanic Serving Institutions than for the other Minority Serving Institutions. Education also lacks good baseline information on technology capacity at Minority Serving Institutions. Expanding current efforts to include such data would provide a basis for measuring the progress being made by Minority Serving Institutions.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-900, Distance Education: More Data Could Improve Education's Ability to Track Technology at Minority Serving Institutions
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-900
entitled 'Distance Education: More Data Could Improve Education's
Ability to Track Technology at Minority Serving Institutions' which was
released on October 06, 2003.
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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
September 2003:
Distance Education:
More Data Could Improve Education's Ability to Track Technology at
Minority Serving Institutions:
GAO-03-900:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-900, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
Distance education”offering courses by Internet, video, or other forms
outside the classroom”is a fast growing part of postsecondary
education. GAO was asked to review the state of distance education at
Minority Serving Institutions, which are schools that serve high
percentages of minority students, including Blacks, Hispanics, and
American Indians. Under Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act,
these schools are eligible for grants that can be used for expanding
their technology, including distance education.
GAO‘s review focused on (1) the use of distance education at Minority
Serving Institutions, (2) key factors influencing these schools‘
decisions about whether or not to offer distance education, and (3)
steps the Department of Education could take, if any, to improve
monitoring efforts of technological progress under Titles III and V
programs.
What GAO Found:
There are some variations in the use of distance education at Minority
Serving Institutions compared to other schools. For example, while
Minority Serving Institutions tend to offer at least one distance
education course at the same rate as other schools, they differ in how
many courses are offered and which students take the courses. Also,
like other schools, larger Minority Serving Institutions tend to offer
more distance education than smaller schools, and public schools tend
to offer more distance education than private schools. However,
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges
generally offer fewer courses than other schools, and a smaller
percentage of minority students take such courses.
Minority Serving Institutions consider two main factors in deciding
whether to offer distance education. The first is distance education‘s
compatibility with the school‘s preferred teaching method. Many
schools that offered no distance education had a strong preference for
a classroom-based approach. The second is resources–schools offering
little or no distance education had limited technology and support
personnel. Also, Historically Black Colleges and Universities and
Hispanic Serving Institutions viewed distance education as a lower
priority compared to expanding technology usage in the classroom. By
contrast, Tribal Colleges gave distance education higher priority,
reflecting the greater geographic dispersion of their students.
Education could strengthen its monitoring efforts of the Title III and
V programs by expanding its existing system. Currently, the monitoring
efforts for tracking the progress of technological improvements are
more complete for Hispanic Serving Institutions than for the other
Minority Serving Institutions. Education also lacks good baseline
information on technology capacity at Minority Serving Institutions.
Expanding current efforts to include such data would provide a basis
for measuring the progress being made by Minority Serving
Institutions.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that Education make its system for tracking technology
improvements more complete for the different types of Minority Serving
Institutions and consider ways to develop baseline information on
technology capacity.
In commenting on a draft of this report, Education generally agreed
with GAO‘s findings and recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-900.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby at
(202) 512-8403 or ashbyc@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
There Are Some Variations in the Use of Distance Education at Minority
Serving Institutions Compared to Other Schools:
Teaching Preference and Resources Available for Distance Education
Affect the Extent to Which Minority Serving Institutions Offer Distance
Education:
Education Can Further Refine Its Programs for Monitoring Technology
Usage at Minority Serving Institutions:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Historically Black Colleges and Universities:
Appendix III: Hispanic Serving Institutions:
Appendix IV: Tribal Colleges:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Selected Characteristics of Minority Serving Institutions:
Table 2: Characteristics of Grants for Minority Serving Institutions
under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended:
Table 3: Differences in the Types of Activities Monitored by Education
in Minority Serving Institution Annual Reports:
Figures:
Figure 1: Distribution of Historically Black Colleges and Universities,
by State:
Figure 2: Distribution of Hispanic Serving Institutions, by State:
Figure 3: Distribution of Tribal Colleges, by State:
Figure 4: Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions That Offer
Distance Education Is about the Same as the Percentage for Other
Schools:
Figure 5: Higher Percentage of Larger Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions Offer Distance
Education:
Figure 6: Higher Percentage of Public Minority Serving Institutions
Offer Distance Education:
Figure 7: Percent of Minority Serving Institutions Offering Degree
Programs Is about the Same or Less Than Other Schools:
Figure 8: Distance Education Generally Ranks Lower in Relation to Other
Technology Goals:
Figure 9: Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions That Have
Strategic and Financial Plans for Expanding Their Technology
Infrastructure:
Abbreviations:
IPEDS: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System:
NPSAS: National Postsecondary Education Data System:
PEQIS: Postsecondary Education Quick Information System:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 12, 2003:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
United States Senate:
The Honorable George Miller
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Education and the Workforce
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Rubén Hinojosa
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Major Owens
House of Representatives:
For over 100 years, the Congress has recognized that some postsecondary
institutions have roles to play in providing minority students with
help in attaining their educational goals and developing skills
necessary to move into all facets of the American economy. In the 2000-
01 school year, 465 schools, or about 7 percent of postsecondary
institutions in the United States,[Footnote 1] served about 35 percent
of all Black, American Indian, and Hispanic students. These schools
have special designation under federal law as Minority Serving
Institutions.[Footnote 2]
Like other postsecondary institutions, over the last decade, Minority
Serving Institutions have faced the challenge of trying to keep pace
with rapidly changing technology usage in education. Part of keeping
pace with technology involves using it in traditional classroom
education, but one growing area--distance education--has commanded
particular attention. As defined in federal law, distance education is,
"an educational process that is characterized by the separation, in
time or place, between instructor and student."[Footnote 3] Some
examples of course delivery methods include the Internet,
videoconferencing, and videocassettes. Distance education offers
opportunities for students to take classes without considering where
they live or when classes may be available. In the 1999-2000 school
year, about one in every 13 postsecondary students enrolled in at least
1 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. For the most part, students
taking distance education courses can qualify for student financial aid
in the same way as students taking traditional courses. As the largest
provider of student financial aid to postsecondary students (an
estimated $60 billion in fiscal year 2003), the federal government has
a substantial interest in distance education. Under Title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, the federal government
provides grants, loans, and work-study wages for millions of students
each year.
The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, provides specific federal
support for Minority Serving Institutions through Titles III and V. In
2002, grants funded under these two titles provided over $300 million
for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving
Institutions, and Tribal Colleges to improve their academic quality,
institutional management, and fiscal stability. Technology is one of
the many purposes to which these grants can be applied. As the Congress
prepares to reauthorize the act, you asked us to examine several issues
related to Minority Serving Institutions and technology--and
particularly to distance education. We focused our work on determining
(1) whether the use of distance education varies between Minority
Serving Institutions and non-Minority Serving Institutions; (2) what
factors Minority Serving Institutions consider when deciding whether to
offer distance education; and (3) what steps Education could take, if
any, to improve its monitoring of technological progress, including
distance education, at Minority Serving Institutions under Titles III
and V. In September 2002, we testified on some of these issues before
the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.[Footnote 4] Additionally, you asked us to look at the quality
of distance education and examine any statutory and regulatory issues
related to distance education. We plan to issue a report on those
topics later this year.
Our findings are based on questionnaires that were developed and sent
to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving
Institutions, and Tribal Colleges. Seventy-eight percent, 75 percent,
and 82 percent of the schools responded, respectively. We compared the
results of our survey with Education's July 2003 report entitled
Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Education
Institutions: 2000-2001. This survey was sent to over 1,600 2-year and
4-year degree granting institutions that were eligible for federal
student aid programs and provided information on distance education
offerings by these schools. However, the data from our survey and the
survey conducted by Education are not completely comparable because
they cover two different time periods. We also analyzed two databases
produced by Education's National Center for Education Statistics. We
analyzed data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study
(NPSAS)[Footnote 5] to examine the characteristics of postsecondary
students, including those who attended Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, involved in distance
education programs. We analyzed data from the Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS)[Footnote 6] to examine the
characteristics of postsecondary institutions. Additionally, we
conducted site visits to selected schools drawn from these three types
of Minority Serving Institutions. We interviewed Education officials
involved in programs aimed at improving the quality of education at
Minority Serving Institutions. Finally, we interviewed numerous experts
on distance education. A more detailed discussion of our scope and
methodology is included in appendix I. We performed our work between
October 2002 and September 2003 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
There are some variations in the use of distance education at Minority
Serving Institutions compared to other schools. It is difficult to
generalize across the Minority Serving Institutions, but available data
indicate that while Minority Serving Institutions tend to offer at
least one distance education course at the same rate as other schools,
they differ in how many courses are offered and which students take the
courses. Overall, the percentage of schools offering at least one
distance education course in the 2002-03 school year was 56 percent for
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 63 percent for Hispanic
Serving Institutions, and 63 percent for Tribal Colleges, based on data
from our questionnaire. Similarly, 56 percent of 2-and 4-year schools
across the country offered at least one distance education course in
the 2000-01 school year, according to a separate survey conducted by
Education. Minority Serving Institutions also tended to mirror other
schools in that larger schools were more likely to offer distance
education than smaller schools, and public schools were more likely to
offer distance education than private schools. Tribal Colleges were an
exception; all of them were small, but the percentage of schools
offering distance education courses was relatively high compared to
other smaller schools. The greater use of distance education among
Tribal Colleges may reflect their need to serve students who often live
in remote areas. In two respects, however, the use of distance
education at Minority Serving Institutions differed from other schools.
First, of those institutions offering at least one distance education
course, Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal
Colleges generally offered fewer distance education courses--a
characteristic that may reflect the smaller size of these two types of
institutions compared to other schools. Second, to the extent that data
are available, they indicate that minority students at Historically
Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions
participate in distance education to a somewhat lower degree than other
students. For example, in the 1999-2000 school year, fewer
undergraduates at Historically Black Colleges and Universities took
distance education courses than students at non-Minority Serving
Institutions--6 percent v. 8.4 percent of undergraduates--a condition
that may reflect the fact that these schools offer fewer distance
education courses. Also, at Hispanic Serving Institutions, Hispanic
students had lower rates of participation in distance education than
non-Hispanic students attending these schools. These differences were
statistically significant.
Minority Serving Institutions take into account two key factors in
deciding whether to offer distance education, according to our
questionnaire responses. One is their preferred teaching method. About
half of Historically Black Colleges and Universities that currently do
not offer distance education to undergraduates indicated that a primary
reason for not offering distance education was that they prefer
teaching in the classroom. For example, even though Howard University,
a Historically Black University in Washington, D.C., has substantial
technology such as multimedia rooms and sophisticated network
capabilities, the school does not offer distance education courses for
undergraduates and has no plans to do so because it prefers teaching
undergraduates in the classroom. The second factor reported by schools
as a reason for not providing distance education was limited resources
for technology. Some Minority Serving Institutions said they wanted to
offer more distance education but had limited technology to do so. For
example, officials from the 10 Tribal Colleges that do not offer any
distance education indicated that improvements in technology would be
helpful. Officials at one Tribal College told us that some residents of
reservations tend to be place-bound because of tribal and familial
responsibilities; distance education would be one of the few realistic
postsecondary options for this population, if technology were
available. Technological limitations for Tribal Colleges involve a lack
of resources to purchase needed technologies and difficulties in
accessing technology, such as high-speed Internet, due to the rural and
remote location of many reservations. All three types of schools
identified the lack of resources--for investment in technology and for
technology support staff--as particular limitations. In addition, from
a broader context, Minority Serving Institutions reported that they
view distance education as just one of many goals for technology--with
varying degrees of priority depending on the college. In response to
our survey, officials from Historically Black Colleges and Universities
and Hispanic Serving Institutions more frequently indicated, for
example, that relative to goals such as increasing the use of
technology in the classroom, distance education ranks lower. At these
schools, training faculty in the use of technology and improving the
use of information technology in the classroom are higher priorities
than distance education. By contrast, officials at Tribal Colleges more
frequently placed distance education as a higher priority, reflecting
their struggle to provide educational opportunities to populations
across large geographic areas. However, they too identified other goals
related to technology as important.
Education could improve its monitoring of technological progress--
including distance education--at Minority Serving Institutions under
Titles III and V by collecting more data on technology, including
baseline data, at these institutions. Education is taking steps to
monitor the extent to which its grant programs are improving the use of
technology by Minority Serving Institutions, but it has opportunities
to track the expanding use of technology--including distance education-
-by capturing information in a more complete fashion across the three
major types of Minority Serving Institutions. While Education's
tracking system appears to include sufficient information on technology
at Hispanic Serving Institutions, it contains less information on the
usage of grant funds for technology improvements for Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges. Additionally, although
Education has set a goal of improving technology capacity at Minority
Serving Institutions, it has not established a baseline against which
progress can be measured. If Education is to be successful in measuring
progress in this area, it may need to take a more proactive role in
modifying existing research efforts to include information on the
extent to which technology, including such basic information as student
access to computers, is available at all schools. Having such
information would provide policymakers and program managers an improved
basis for making budget and program decisions.
In this report, we are making recommendations to the Secretary of
Education to (1) direct managers of the Title III and V programs to
broaden their tracking systems so that they are applied in a more
complete manner to the different types of Minority Serving Institutions
and (2) study the feasibility of adding questions on distance education
and information technology to existing research efforts carried out by
Education.
We provided Education with a draft of this report for its review and
comment. In commenting on our draft report, Education generally agreed
with our findings and recommendations. Education's written comments are
in appendix V.
Background:
In general, Minority Serving Institutions vary in size and scope and
serve a high percentage of minority students, many of whom are
financially disadvantaged. In size, for example, they range from Texas
College, a Historically Black College with about 100 students, to
Miami-Dade Community College, a Hispanic Serving Institution with more
than 46,000 students. In scope, they range from schools with
certificate or 2-year degree programs to universities with an extensive
array of graduate and professional degree programs. Table 1 briefly
compares the three types of Minority Serving Institutions in terms of
their number, type, and size. Appendixes II to IV provide additional
information about the three types of institutions.
Table 1: Selected Characteristics of Minority Serving Institutions:
Characteristics: Number of schools[A]; Type of Institution:
Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 102; Type of Institution:
Hispanic Serving Institutions: 334; Type of Institution: Tribal
Colleges: 29.
Characteristics: Percent of each type of institution:
Characteristics: Public; Type of Institution: Historically Black
Colleges and Universities: 50; Type of Institution: Hispanic Serving
Institutions: 45; Type of Institution: Tribal Colleges: 100.
Characteristics: Private nonprofit; Type of Institution: Historically
Black Colleges and Universities: 50; Type of Institution: Hispanic
Serving Institutions: 23; Type of Institution: Tribal Colleges: 0.
Characteristics: Private for-profit; Type of Institution: Historically
Black Colleges and Universities: 0; Type of Institution: Hispanic
Serving Institutions: 32; Type of Institution: Tribal Colleges: 0.
Characteristics: Average number of students per institution; Type of
Institution: Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 2,685; Type
of Institution: Hispanic Serving Institutions: 5,141; Type of
Institution: Tribal Colleges: 467.
Characteristics: Number of students served in 2000-01; Type of
Institution: Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 274,000;
Type of Institution: Hispanic Serving Institutions: 1.7 million; Type
of Institution: Tribal Colleges: 13,500.
Source: Department of Education and GAO analysis of IPEDS for the 2000-
01 school year.
[A] This figure represents the number of schools eligible for the
federal student aid programs in the 2000-01 school year based on our
analysis of IPEDS.
[End of table]
Historically Black Colleges and Universities:
Historically Black Colleges and Universities are the oldest of the
Minority Serving Institutions. While the first Historically Black
University, Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, was founded in 1837,
most of the colleges and universities were founded between 1865 and
1890. In the 2000-01 school year, there were 102 Historically Black
Colleges and Universities that were eligible for federal student aid
programs, including Xavier University in New Orleans, Louisiana; Howard
University in Washington, D.C.; and Spelman College in Atlanta,
Georgia. Our analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS, shows that while
Historically Black Colleges and Universities represented 2 percent of
all public and nonprofit postsecondary institutions, they enrolled
about 14 percent (223,359) of Black non-Hispanic students in the United
States. In all, the schools were in 20 states, the District of
Columbia, and the Virgin Islands (see fig. 1). About 85 percent of the
students enrolled at these institutions were black Americans. Their
students and parents have lower incomes, on average, than students and
parents at non-Minority Serving Institutions.
Figure 1: Distribution of Historically Black Colleges and Universities,
by State:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Hispanic Serving Institutions:
Hispanic Serving Institutions were recognized as such under the 1992
amendments to the Higher Education Act[Footnote 7] and some of the
schools first received funding through the Higher Education Act in
1995. Under the definition established by the Congress, a Hispanic
Serving Institution must have a student body that is at least 25
percent Hispanic, and at least half of the Hispanic students must be
low-income. In the 2000-01 school year, there were 334 Hispanic Serving
Institutions, including Long Beach City College in California; the
University of Miami in Florida; and the University of New Mexico. Our
analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that while Hispanic Serving
Institutions represented only 5 percent of all postsecondary
institutions, they enrolled 48 percent (798,489) of all Hispanic
students. These schools were located in 14 states and Puerto Rico (see
fig. 2). About 51 percent of the students enrolled at these
institutions are Hispanic. Compared to the two other major categories
of Minority Serving Institutions, Hispanic Serving Institutions are
generally larger and have more racial diversity in their student body.
They are also the only type to include private for-profit schools, such
as ITT Technical Colleges. Their students and parents have lower
incomes, on average, than students and parents at non-Minority Serving
Institutions.
Figure 2: Distribution of Hispanic Serving Institutions, by State:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Tribal Colleges:
Most Tribal Colleges were founded in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1998, the
Higher Education Act[Footnote 8] was amended to create a grant program
for Tribal Colleges to improve educational quality offered to their
students, and some of the schools first received funds in 1998. In the
2000-01 school year, there were 29 Tribal Colleges located in 12 states
(see fig. 3). They included Diné College in Tsaile, Arizona; Salish
Kootenai College in Pablo, Montana; and Oglala Lakota College in Kyle,
South Dakota. Our analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that while Tribal
Colleges were less than 1 percent of all public and private nonprofit
postsecondary institutions, they enrolled 8 percent (11,262) of all
American Indian/Alaska Native students in the United States. Tribal
Colleges are the smallest of the three major types of Minority Serving
Institutions, averaging less than 500 students, and nearly all are 2-
year schools. About 85 percent of the students attending Tribal
Colleges in the fall of 2000 were American Indian/Alaska Native. The
percentage of students at Tribal Colleges who receive Pell Grants--a
type of financial aid made available to the neediest students--was more
than double that of students at non-Minority Serving Institutions (60
percent v. 24 percent).[Footnote 9]
Figure 3: Distribution of Tribal Colleges, by State:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Federal Aid to Minority Serving Institutions:
Through certain provisions in the Higher Education Act, the Congress
has recognized the role that Minority Serving Institutions play in
serving the needs of students, many of whom are from disadvantaged
backgrounds. These provisions authorize grants for augmenting the
limited resources that many Minority Serving Institutions have for
funding their academic programs. Historically Black Colleges and
Universities are eligible for grants funded through Title III, part B;
Hispanic Serving Institutions through Title V, part A; and Tribal
Colleges through Title III, part A[Footnote 10] of the Higher Education
Act. These grants seek to improve the academic quality, institutional
management, and fiscal stability of eligible institutions. More
specifically, according to Title III, part B, Historically Black
Colleges and Universities receive grants, in part, to remedy
discriminatory action of the states and the federal government against
Black colleges and universities. Hispanic Serving Institutions receive
funds to expand educational opportunities for and improve the academic
attainment of Hispanic students. Finally, the grants for Tribal
Colleges seek to improve and expand the colleges' capacity to serve
American Indian students. The Congress has identified as many as 14
areas in which institutions may use funds for improving their academic
programs. Authorized uses include purchase or rental of
telecommunications equipment or services, support of faculty
development, and purchase of library books, periodicals, and other
educational materials. Table 2 provides more information on each type
of grant.[Footnote 11]
Table 2: Characteristics of Grants for Minority Serving Institutions
under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended:
Characteristics: Amount of funding in 1999; Type of grant: Title III,
part B: Historically Black Colleges and Universities: $136 million;
Type of grant: Title V, part A: Hispanic Serving Institutions[A]: $28
million; Type of grant: Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: $3 million.
Characteristics: Number of schools funded in 1999; Type of grant: Title
III, part B: Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 98; Type of
grant: Title V, part A: Hispanic Serving Institutions[A]: 39; Type of
grant: Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 8.
Characteristics: Amount of funding in 2002; Type of grant: Title III,
part B: Historically Black Colleges and Universities: $206 million;
Type of grant: Title V, part A: Hispanic Serving Institutions[A]: $86
million; Type of grant: Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: $17.5
million.
Characteristics: Number of schools funded in 2002; Type of grant: Title
III, part B: Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 99; Type of
grant: Title V, part A: Hispanic Serving Institutions[A]: 172[B]; Type
of grant: Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 27.
Characteristics: Type of grant; Type of grant: Title III, part B:
Historically Black Colleges and Universities: Formulaic/non-
competitive[C]; Type of grant: Title V, part A: Hispanic Serving
Institutions[A]: Competitive[C]; Type of grant: Title III, part A
Tribal Colleges: Competitive[C].
Characteristics: Duration of individual grants; Type of grant: Title
III, part B: Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 5 years[D];
Type of grant: Title V, part A: Hispanic Serving Institutions[A]: 5
years[D]; Type of grant: Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 5 years[D].
Characteristics: Wait-out period (minimum number of years between
grants); Type of grant: Title III, part B: Historically Black Colleges
and Universities: None; Type of grant: Title V, part A: Hispanic
Serving Institutions[A]: 2 years; Type of grant: Title III, part A
Tribal Colleges: None.
Source: The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended and the Department
of Education.
[A] Hispanic Serving Institutions are the only Minority Serving
Institutions that include private for-profit schools. Private for-
profit schools are not eligible for funding under Title V, part A.
[ B] In 2002, 172 Hispanic Serving Institutions received 191 grants.
Nineteen of the 172 institutions received 2 grants--an individual grant
and a cooperative development grant.
[C] Tribal Colleges and Hispanic Serving Institutions receive grants
based on a ranking of applications from a competitive peer review
evaluation. Historically Black Colleges and Universities receive grants
based on a formula that considers, in part, the number of Pell Grant
recipients, the number of graduates, and the number of students that
enroll in graduate school within 5 years after earning an undergraduate
degree.
[D] Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving
Institutions, and Tribal Colleges are required to prepare and submit a
5-year comprehensive development plan when they participate in Title
III, part A, Title V, part A, or Title III, part B programs.
[End of table]
One area to which such funds can be directed is technology, both inside
the classroom and, in the form of distance education, outside the
classroom. Both inside and outside the classroom, technology is
changing how institutions educate their students, and Minority Serving
Institutions, like other schools, are grappling with how best to adapt.
Through such methods as E-mail, chat rooms, and direct instructional
delivery via the Internet, technology can enhance students' ability to
learn any time, any place, rather than be bound by time in the
classroom or in the library. For Minority Serving Institutions, the
importance of technology takes on an additional dimension in that
available research indicates their students may arrive with less prior
access to technology, such as computers and the Internet, than their
counterparts in other schools.[Footnote 12] These students may need
considerable exposure to technology to be fully equipped with job-
related skills.
Distance Education:
Distance education is one major application of this new technology.
Although distance education is not a new concept, it has assumed
markedly newer forms and greater prominence over the past decade.
Distance education can trace its history to the 1870s when
correspondence courses--a home study course generally completed by
mail--were first offered. Now, distance education is increasingly
delivered in electronic forms, such as videoconferencing and the
Internet. Through these approaches, distance education provides
postsecondary education access to students who may live in remote
locations or whose schedules require greater flexibility. For example,
schools such as the University of Phoenix Online and the University of
Maryland University College target entire distance learning degree
programs to working adults who take their classes largely at home.
Distance education's effect on helping students complete their courses
of study is still largely unknown. Although there is some anecdotal
evidence that distance education can help students complete their
programs or graduate from college, school officials that we spoke to
did not identify any studies that evaluated the extent to which
distance education has improved completion or graduation rates.
There Are Some Variations in the Use of Distance Education at Minority
Serving Institutions Compared to Other Schools:
It is difficult to generalize across the Minority Serving Institutions,
but available data indicate that while Minority Serving Institutions
tend to offer at least one distance education course at about the same
rate as other schools, they differ in how many courses are offered and
which students take the distance education courses. Minority Serving
Institutions tend to be similar to non-Minority Serving Institutions in
the percentage of schools that offer distance education, and to a
considerable degree, they also mirror other schools in that distance
education is more prominent at larger schools and at public schools.
However, there are also differences between Minority Serving
Institutions and other schools, and between the three categories of
Minority Serving Institutions we reviewed. We found that Historically
Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges offered fewer
distance education courses than other schools, which may be a
reflection of their generally smaller size. The limited data available
about student participation in distance education indicates that
minority students may be somewhat less involved in distance education
than other students. In the 1999-2000 school year, for example, 6
percent of students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities
were involved with distance education, compared with 8.4 percent at
non-Minority Serving institutions--perhaps reflecting the fewer number
of distance education courses that Historically Black Colleges and
Universities offer. This result is statistically significant.
Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions Offering at Least One
Distance Education Course Is about the Same as the Percentage for Other
Schools:
The percentage of Minority Serving Institutions that offered at least
one distance education course is about the same as the percentage for
all degree granting postsecondary institutions eligible for the federal
student aid programs. Education's July 2003 report indicates that about
56 percent of 2-year and 4-year institutions whose students were
eligible for federal student aid programs offered distance education
courses during the 2000-01 school year.[Footnote 13] The results from
our questionnaire showed that about 56 percent of Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, 63 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions,
and 63 percent of Tribal Colleges offered at least one distance
education course (see fig. 4). However, the data from our survey and
the survey conducted by Education are not completely comparable because
they cover two different time periods. Education's survey covered the
2000-01 school year while our survey covered the 2002-03 school
year.[Footnote 14]
Figure 4: Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions That Offer
Distance Education Is about the Same as the Percentage for Other
Schools:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
According to our survey, Minority Serving Institutions offered distance
education courses[Footnote 15] for two main reasons: (1) it improves
access to courses for some students who live away from campus and (2)
it provides convenience to older, working, or married students. The
following examples illustrate these conditions.
* Northwest Indian College, a Tribal College in Bellingham, Washington,
has over 10 percent of its 600 students involved in distance education.
It offers distance education by videoconference equipment or
correspondence. The College offers over 20 distance education courses,
such as mathematics and English to students at seven remote locations
in Washington and Idaho. According to College officials, distance
education technology is essential because it provides access to
educational opportunities to students who live away from campus. For
example, some students taking distance education courses live hundreds
of miles from the College in locations such as the Nez Perce
Reservation in Idaho and the Makah Reservation in Neah Bay, Washington.
According to school officials, students involved in distance education
tend to be older with dependents, and therefore, find it difficult to
take courses outside of their community. Also, one official noted that
staying within the tribal community is valued and distance education
allows members of tribes to stay close to their community and still
obtain skills or a degree.
* The University of the Incarnate Word is a private nonprofit Hispanic
Serving Institution with an enrollment of about 6,900 students. The
school, located in San Antonio, Texas, offers on-line degree and
certificate programs, including degrees in business, nursing, and
information technology. About 2,400 students are enrolled in the
school's distance education program. The school's on-line programs are
directed at nontraditional students (students who are 24 years old or
older), many of whom are Hispanic. In general, the ideal candidates for
the on-line program are older students, working adults, or adult
learners who have been out of high school for 5 or more years,
according to the Provost and the Director of Instructional Technology.
Distance Education at Most Minority Serving Institutions Follows
National Trends with Regard to Size and Type of School Offering at
Least One Distance Education Course:
For the most part, those Minority Serving Institutions that offered at
least one distance education course tended to be similar to other
schools offering at least one distance education course with regard to
size and type of school. Our survey results showed that Historically
Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions with
3,001 to 9,999 students were more than twice as likely to offer
distance education courses as schools with 2,000 or fewer students (see
fig. 5). Similarly, in July 2003, Education reported that a higher
percentage of larger schools eligible for federal student aid programs
offered distance education compared with smaller schools. Education
reported its results using somewhat different size categories than the
ones we used in our questionnaire, so the results cannot be presented
side by side for comparative purposes. However, according to
Education's report, the distribution was much the same: 41 percent of
the schools with an enrollment of less than 3,000 offered distance
education courses, compared with 88 percent of the schools with an
enrollment of 3,000 to 9,999 and 95 percent of the schools with an
enrollment of greater than 10,000.
Figure 5: Higher Percentage of Larger Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions Offer Distance
Education:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Our survey disclosed that Tribal Colleges, even though all have fewer
than 2,000 students, were noticeably different from Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions in the
extent to which they were involved with distance education. Among
Tribal Colleges, 65 percent offered at least one distance education
course, compared with 34 percent of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and 33 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions with 2,000
or fewer students. Our site visits to these schools raised several
possible explanations. 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 these cases, distance
education is an appealing way to deliver courses to remote locations.
Also, officials at one Tribal College told us that some residents of
reservations may be place-bound due to tribal and familial
responsibilities, making distance education one of the few realistic
postsecondary education options. Also important, according to some
officials, is that tribal residents have expressed an interest in
enrolling in distance education courses.
With regard to type of school, Minority Serving Institutions mirrored
the national trend in that the percentage of Minority Serving
Institutions offering distance education was higher among public than
private institutions (see fig. 6). Among public Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, about 80
percent or more offered distance education; these percentages dropped
by 20 percent or more for private nonprofit schools and was even lower
for private for-profit schools. Similarly, Education's survey showed
that about 90 percent of 4-year public institutions offered distance
education, compared with 40 percent of private institutions.
Figure 6: Higher Percentage of Public Minority Serving Institutions
Offer Distance Education:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges Tend
to Offer Fewer Distance Education Courses:
While roughly the same percentage of Minority Serving Institutions
offered at least one distance education course as non-Minority Serving
Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal
Colleges tended to offer fewer courses. For example, of the schools
that offered at least one distance education course, 52 percent of the
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 61 percent of Tribal
Colleges offered 10 or fewer undergraduate distance education courses.
By contrast, only 27 percent of 2-year and 4-year institutions that
offered at least one distance education course and that were eligible
for the federal student aid programs offered 10 or fewer distance
education courses, according to Education's survey. Similarly, about 25
percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions that offered at least one
distance education course also offered 10 or fewer courses. To some
extent, these differences may reflect the fact that Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges, as a group, are smaller
than other institutions. The relationship discussed earlier about an
institution's enrollment and the size of its distance education program
may help explain why the number of courses offered via distance
education are generally smaller at these two types of Minority Serving
Institutions.
While the overall size of the distance education programs was smaller,
the percentage of Minority Serving Institutions offering degree
programs through distance education was close to that of other schools.
Education reported that about 19 percent of 2-year and 4-year
institutions eligible for the federal student aid programs offered
degree or certificate programs that could be earned entirely through
distance education. Similarly, about 19 percent of Hispanic Serving
Institutions and about 17 percent of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities offered degree or certificate programs through distance
education (see fig. 7). The percentage was lower for Tribal Colleges
(11 percent).
Figure 7: Percent of Minority Serving Institutions Offering Degree
Programs Is about the Same or Less Than Other Schools:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Fewer Minority Students Take Distance Education Courses:
By analyzing Education's NPSAS database, we were also able to make some
comparisons of the number of students taking distance education courses
at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving
Institutions, and non-Minority Serving Institutions. We were unable to
develop data on the extent that Tribal College students use distance
education because NPSAS included data from only one Tribal College.
There appears to be a difference between minority students and other
students in the extent to which they are involved with distance
education courses. More specifically:
* Students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities tend to use
distance education to a lesser extent than students at other schools.
In school year 1999-2000, 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. By comparison, 8.4 percent of
undergraduates at other schools enrolled in at least one distance
education course, and 2.5 percent took their entire program through
distance education. These differences may reflect the fact that
Historically Black Colleges and Universities generally offer fewer
distance education courses than non-Minority Serving Institutions.
* Hispanic students attending Hispanic Serving Institutions use
distance education at a lower rate than other students at the same
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.
We analyzed student characteristics, such as their age and income, to
determine if these characteristics could explain why these students
were less involved in distance education, but our analysis did not
establish such a link. The analysis showed that distance education
students are more likely to be older, married, independent, a part-time
student, and have a higher income than the average postsecondary
student. Conversely, the average student at Historically Black Colleges
and Universities is more likely to be younger, single, dependent, a
full-time student, and have a lower income than the average
postsecondary student, and to a somewhat lesser degree, the
characteristics of students at Hispanic Serving Institutions tend to
follow the same pattern. When we conducted a logistic regression
analysis[Footnote 16] to analyze these differences more carefully, we
did not find that these characteristics tended to explain the extent to
which a student is involved in distance education. Among the
characteristics that we describe above, only a single student
characteristic--marital status--was associated with whether a student
enrolls in distance education, and this relationship was limited. This
suggests that there may be other reasons, such as fewer courses being
offered, that help explain why a smaller percentage of students at
Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic students at Hispanic Serving
Institutions enroll in distance education courses.
Teaching Preference and Resources Available for Distance Education
Affect the Extent to Which Minority Serving Institutions Offer Distance
Education:
According to officials of Minority Serving Institutions, there are two
factors that explain why some Minority Serving Institutions do not
offer distance education. First, nearly half of Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions did not
offer any distance education because they preferred to teach their
students in the classroom rather than through distance education.
Limited resources is the second factor reported by schools for not
providing distance education. In addition, when placed within a broader
context of technology improvements, Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions viewed distance
education as a relatively low priority when compared to other purposes,
such as increasing the use of information technology in the classroom.
Most Tribal Colleges also viewed expanding technology usage on campus
as a high priority, but they more frequently considered distance
education a higher priority than Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions.
By Design, Some Minority Serving Institutions Prefer Not to Offer
Distance Education:
To a great degree or very great degree, nearly half of Historically
Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions
indicated that they do not offer distance education because classroom
education best meets the needs of their students.[Footnote 17]
Conversely, only 10 percent of Tribal Colleges that are not involved in
distance education indicated that classroom education best meets the
needs of their students. Here are examples from two schools that prefer
teaching their students in the classroom rather than by the use of
distance education.
* Howard University, an Historically Black University in Washington,
D.C., with about 10,000 students, has substantial information
technology; however, it prefers to use the technology in teaching
undergraduates on campus rather than through developing and offering
distance education. The University has state-of-the-art hardware and
software, such as wireless access to the school's network; a digital
auditorium; and a 24-hour-a-day Technology Center, which support and
enhance the academic achievement for its students. Despite its
technological capabilities, the University does not offer distance
education courses to undergraduates and has no plans to do so.
According to the Dean of Scholarships and Financial Aid, the University
prefers teaching undergraduates in the classroom because more self-
discipline is needed when taking distance education courses. Also, many
undergraduates benefit from the support provided by students and
faculty in a classroom setting.
* Robert Morris College is a private nonprofit Hispanic Serving
Institution located in Chicago, Illinois, that offers bachelor degrees
in business, computer technology, and health sciences. About 25 percent
of its 6,200 undergraduates are Hispanic. Although the College has one
computer for every four students, it does not offer distance education
courses and has no plans to do so. School officials believe that
classroom education best meets the needs of its students because of the
personal interaction that occurs in a classroom setting.
Some Schools Would Like to Offer More Distance Education, but Have
Limited Resources to Do So:
Among Minority Serving Institutions that do not offer distance
education, over 50 percent would like to offer distance education in
the future, but indicated that they have limited resources with which
to do so. About half of Historically Black Colleges and Universities
and Hispanic Serving Institutions that do not offer distance education
indicated that they do not have the necessary technology--including
students with access to computers or the Internet at their residences-
-for distance education. A higher percentage of Tribal Colleges (67
percent) cited limitations in technology as a reason why they do not
offer distance education. Technological limitations are twofold for
Tribal Colleges. The first, and more obvious limitation is a lack of
resources to purchase and develop needed technologies. The second is
that due to the remote location of some campuses, schools do not have
access to needed technology--that is, schools may be limited to the
technology of the surrounding communities. For example, a school cannot
purchase certain technologies that are not provided in those
communities. All 10 Tribal Colleges that did not offer distance
education indicated that improvements in technology, such as
videoconference equipment and network infrastructure with greater
speed, would be helpful. Here are some examples of how resource
limitations impact development of distance education programs at
Minority Serving Institutions.
* Little Priest Tribal College, located on the Winnebago Indian
Reservation in northeastern Nebraska, does not offer any distance
education courses, but would like to do so in the future. The college
serves about 160 undergraduates and the Academic Dean indicated that
two-way videoconference equipment and support personnel would be needed
in order to offer distance education courses. She said that the school
would like to offer courses in the native language (called Ho Chunk) of
the Winnebago Tribe. Currently, a native speaker capable of teaching
the language resides in Wisconsin-hundreds of miles from the Winnebago
reservation. Having such equipment would allow the instructor to teach
the native language to students who attend classes on campus, according
to the Academic Dean.
* Fisk University, an Historically Black University in Nashville,
Tennessee, serves about 800 undergraduates and about 30 graduate
students. The school does not offer distance education courses, but
hopes to do so in the future. The Director, Academic Computing,
indicated that distance education would help supplement the curriculum
that the school currently offers to students. The school would also
like to offer on-line courses in African-American History, however, it
currently does not have the information technology equipment for
distance education.
For Many Institutions, Expanding Technology on Campus is More Important
Than Applying It to Distance Education:
Minority Serving Institutions generally indicated that offering more
distance education was a lower priority than using technology to
educate their classroom students. All of the institutions reported that
their highest priority was providing more training for faculty in the
use of information technology as a teaching method. Other priorities
included improving network infrastructure, increasing the use of
technology in classrooms, and guaranteeing that all students have
access to a computer. (See fig. 8 for a comparison of how distance
education compares to other selected technology goals.):
Figure 8: Distance Education Generally Ranks Lower in Relation to Other
Technology Goals:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Minority Serving Institutions indicated that they expect to have
difficulties in meeting their goals related to technology. Eighty-seven
percent of Tribal Colleges, 83 percent of Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, and 82 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions cited
limitations in funding as a primary reason for why they may not achieve
their technology-related goals. For example, the Southwest Indian
Polytechnic Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico, serves about 670
students and it uses distance education to provide courses for an
associates degree in early childhood development to about 100 students.
The school uses two-way satellite communication and transmits the
courses to 11 remote locations. According to a technology specialist at
the school, this form of distance education is expensive compared to
other methods. As an alternative, the Institute would like to establish
two-way teleconferencing capability and Internet access at the off-site
locations as a means of expanding educational opportunities. School
officials noted, however, that many of the locations have no telephone
or Internet service because they are in such remote areas of the state.
About half of the schools also noted that they might experience
difficulty in meeting their goals because they did not have enough
staff to operate and maintain information technology and to help
faculty apply technology. For example, officials at Diné College, a
Tribal College on the Navajo Reservation, told us they have not been
able to fill a systems analyst position for the last 3 years. School
officials cited their remote location and the fact that they are
offering relatively low pay as problems in attracting employees that
have skills in operating and maintaining technology equipment.
Having a systematic approach to expanding technology on campuses is an
important step toward modernizing and evaluating technology at
postsecondary schools. About 75 percent of Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, 70 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions, and only
48 percent of Tribal Colleges had completed a strategic plan for
expanding their technology infrastructure. Fewer schools had completed
a financial plan for funding technology improvements. About half of
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving
Institutions, and 19 percent of Tribal Colleges have a financial plan
for expanding their information technology (see fig. 9).
Figure 9: Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions That Have
Strategic and Financial Plans for Expanding Their Technology
Infrastructure:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Studies by other organizations describe challenges faced by Minority
Serving Institutions in expanding their technology infrastructure. For
example, an October 2000 study by Booz, Allen, and Hamilton determined
that historically or predominantly Black colleges identified challenges
in funding, strategic planning, and keeping equipment up to date. An
October 2000 report by the Department of Commerce found that most
Historically Black Colleges and Universities have access to computing
resources, such as high-speed Internet capabilities but individual
student access to campus networks is seriously deficient due to, among
other things, lack of student ownership of computers or lack of access
from campus dormitories. An April 2003 Senate Report noted that only
one Tribal College has funding for high-speed Internet.
Education Can Further Refine Its Programs for Monitoring Technology
Usage at Minority Serving Institutions:
Education is taking steps to monitor the extent to which its grants are
improving the use of technology by Minority Serving Institutions;
however, its efforts could be improved in two ways. First, as Education
creates a new system for measuring the outcomes of its grants, it has
opportunities to more completely capture technology-related
information, including distance education, across the three major types
of Minority Serving Institutions. Second, although Education has set a
goal of improving technology capacity at Minority Serving Institutions,
it has not yet developed a baseline against which progress can be
measured. If Education is to be successful in developing such baseline
data, it may need to examine the potential use of its existing research
efforts, such as IPEDS. IPEDS is currently used to capture information
on the different characteristics of institutions involved in the
federal student aid programs. Education has studied the possibility of
including technology-related information in IPEDS, but so far, has yet
to make a decision on this matter.
Education Has Made Progress in Tracking Outcomes of Title III and Title
V Programs, but Additional Improvements May Be Needed to Ensure More
Complete Coverage Across the Major Types of Minority Serving
Institutions:
Increasing the technological capacity of Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges is
one goal Education has identified in its 2002-03 annual performance
plan. Education's efforts are part of a larger effort by the
administration to emphasize the outcomes of federal programs. According
to the Office of Management and Budget, improving programs by focusing
on results is an integral component of the administration's budget
preparation process. In this regard, Education has made progress in
tracking outcomes of its Title III and Title V programs, but additional
improvements may be needed to make its efforts more complete across the
three major types of Minority Serving Institutions.
In spring 2000, Title III and Title V program staff began an effort to
improve the program monitoring system. As part of these efforts,
Education wanted to develop a system that can capture information to
demonstrate how grants improve the education of students that Minority
Serving Institutions serve. Among the activities that Education and
grantees discussed were how grants are being used to improve
information technology on campuses and how best to collect information
on how such efforts improve the education of students. For example,
program staff held a series of four meetings with about 200 schools and
conducted telephone conferences with another 90 institutions to obtain
feedback on the format and effectiveness of the draft annual
performance report. The Office of Management and Budget reviewed and
approved the annual performance report and commended Education for
"substantial revisions" made to its performance reporting system and
"meaningful interaction with stakeholders." In March 2003, Education
received the first set of data from its grantees for its annual
performance report. According to staff responsible for the annual
performance report, the new monitoring effort is a "work in progress"
and continued improvements and revisions will likely occur later this
year.
In this regard, the progress Education has made in developing an annual
performance report that focuses on results is a major step toward
improving program performance, however, additional improvements may be
needed. More specifically, we found that the way Education tracks the
usage of grant funds for technology improvements among Minority Serving
Institutions may not completely reflect how Historically Black Colleges
and Universities and Tribal Colleges use their grants. The tracking of
technology-related information appears to be adequate for Hispanic
Serving Institutions. (See table 3.) For example, Education's tracking
effort for Hispanic Serving Institutions includes the extent to which
program funds (1) improve student and faculty access to the Internet,
(2) increase the number of computers available to students outside of
classrooms, and (3) expand the number of new distance education courses
and students. Similar information is not collected for Historically
Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges even though a
substantial number of these schools use grant funds to expand distance
education offerings or to improve technology on campus. Eight of the 11
Tribal Colleges that received new Title III grants in 2001 stated that
funds would be used to develop or expand technology usage, including
distance education. Similarly, between 1999-2001, about 23 percent of
Historically Black Colleges and Universities that responded to our
survey indicated that they used Title III funds on distance education.
Table 3: Differences in the Types of Activities Monitored by Education
in Minority Serving Institution Annual Reports:
Activities monitored by Education in annual performance reports for
Title III (part B), Title V (part A), and Title III (part A): Increase
in the number of "wired" classrooms; Minority Serving Institution
reports: Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Title III (part
B)): Yes[A]; Minority Serving Institution reports: Hispanic Serving
Institutions (Title V (part A)): Yes; Minority Serving Institution
reports: Tribal Colleges (Title III (part A)): Yes.
Activities monitored by Education in annual performance reports for
Title III (part B), Title V (part A), and Title III (part A): Offer
training to faculty in the use of technology; Minority Serving
Institution reports: Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(Title III (part B)): Yes; Minority Serving Institution reports:
Hispanic Serving Institutions (Title V (part A)): Yes; Minority Serving
Institution reports: Tribal Colleges (Title III (part A)): Yes.
Activities monitored by Education in annual performance reports for
Title III (part B), Title V (part A), and Title III (part A): Increase
student access to the Internet; Minority Serving Institution reports:
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Title III (part B)):
No[A]; Minority Serving Institution reports: Hispanic Serving
Institutions (Title V (part A)): Yes; Minority Serving Institution
reports: Tribal Colleges (Title III (part A)): No.
Activities monitored by Education in annual performance reports for
Title III (part B), Title V (part A), and Title III (part A): Increase
the number of computers available to students outside of the classroom;
Minority Serving Institution reports: Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (Title III (part B)): No; Minority Serving Institution
reports: Hispanic Serving Institutions (Title V (part A)): Yes;
Minority Serving Institution reports: Tribal Colleges (Title III (part
A)): No.
Activities monitored by Education in annual performance reports for
Title III (part B), Title V (part A), and Title III (part A): Increase
the number of courses using technology; Minority Serving Institution
reports: Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Title III (part
B)): No; Minority Serving Institution reports: Hispanic Serving
Institutions (Title V (part A)): Yes; Minority Serving Institution
reports: Tribal Colleges (Title III (part A)): No.
Activities monitored by Education in annual performance reports for
Title III (part B), Title V (part A), and Title III (part A): Increase
the number of students taking courses using technology; Minority
Serving Institution reports: Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (Title III (part B)): No; Minority Serving Institution
reports: Hispanic Serving Institutions (Title V (part A)): Yes;
Minority Serving Institution reports: Tribal Colleges (Title III (part
A)): No.
Activities monitored by Education in annual performance reports for
Title III (part B), Title V (part A), and Title III (part A): Increase
the number of students using distance learning; Minority Serving
Institution reports: Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(Title III (part B)): No; Minority Serving Institution reports:
Hispanic Serving Institutions (Title V (part A)): Yes; Minority Serving
Institution reports: Tribal Colleges (Title III (part A)): No.
Source: Department of Education and GAO analysis of Education's Annual
Performance Reports for Title III, part A, Title III, part B, and Title
V, part A of the Higher Education Act, as amended.
[A] A "yes" response indicates that the information was collected in
the report. A "no" response indicates that the information was not
collected in the report.
[End of table]
According to managers of the Titles III and V programs, the differences
in the types of information on activities and outcomes that are
captured for each report stems from differences in the titles
themselves. Title V, part A, under which funds are provided to Hispanic
Serving Institutions, explicitly allows program funds to be used for
"creating or improving facilities for Internet or other distance
learning academic instruction capabilities, including purchase or
rental of telecommunications technology equipment or services." The
program for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Title III,
part B) and Tribal Colleges (Title III, part A) does not specifically
address the use of funds in this manner, however, using grant funds for
expanding distance education offerings or technology usage are
authorized activities, according to Education staff. Inasmuch as
Minority Serving Institutions indicated in their questionnaire
responses that they have an interest in expanding both the use of
technology in the classroom and distance education, it may be
appropriate to make the annual performance reports as inclusive as
possible.
Education Does Not Have Baseline Data to Measure Technological Capacity
at Minority Serving Institutions:
One difficulty that Education will encounter in attempting to judge the
extent to which Minority Serving Institutions are increasing their
technological capacity is that it has no baseline to measure against.
Education may have opportunities to fill this void by expanding its
existing research efforts to include data on technology usage and
capabilities at all schools, including Minority Serving
Institutions.[Footnote 18] One vehicle for accomplishing this could be
through IPEDS, a product of one of Education's research efforts that is
conducted annually and that contains data on the characteristics of
institutions and their students' eligibility for federal student aid
programs.
Although Education has researched the usage of distance
education[Footnote 19] at postsecondary institutions, it does not
collect data from postsecondary institutions on the capacity of or
improvements in their technology infrastructure. The growing use of
technology by postsecondary institutions has surfaced as an important
area of research in recent years and Education has held meetings on how
to measure technology capacity at postsecondary institutions. Staff
from the Title III and Title V programs indicated that having such data
for Minority Serving Institutions and other institutions would provide
a national perspective on technology infrastructure at these schools.
However, according to other Education officials, two issues need to be
addressed before such a change can be made. First, there are different
views on how to accurately measure technology infrastructure at
postsecondary institutions. For example, in determining how many
computers are available to students at a school, there is no agreement
on whether personal computers, computers in the library, and computers
for faculty should be included in total or in part. Second, before
Education expands any of its data collection efforts, Office of
Management and Budget regulations[Footnote 20] that implement the
Paperwork Reduction Act require agencies to evaluate, among other
things, the need for collecting data and the costs to respondents of
generating, maintaining, or providing the data. Education would need to
determine how best to resolve these issues before moving forward with
any changes.
Conclusions:
Minority Serving Institutions view the use of technology as a critical
tool in educating their students. Technology allows greater access to
the latest research and to a broader array of information. Ultimately,
Minority Serving Institutions, like other schools, face stiff
challenges in keeping pace with the rapid changes and opportunities
presented by information technology.
In creating the Title III and Title V programs, the Congress
acknowledged that Minority Serving Institutions have historically had
limited resources to invest in educating their students when compared
to other institutions. More complete data on how Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges use Title III funds for
improving technology on campus, and thus, the education of students,
would help inform program managers and policymakers about progress that
has been made and opportunities for improvement. Additionally, as
Education examines the many research efforts it has, it may find it
beneficial to collect information on distance education and technology
capacity at postsecondary institutions. Doing so would provide baseline
data on Minority Serving Institutions and the progress they make in
improving their technology capacity.
Recommendations:
We recommend that the Secretary of Education (1) direct managers of the
Title III and Title V programs to further improve their annual
performance report for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and
Tribal Colleges by including areas such as student access to computers
and the number of distance education courses that were offered and (2)
study the feasibility of adding questions on distance education and
information technology to an existing study at Education, such as
IPEDS, to develop baseline data on technology capacity at Minority
Serving Institutions and to judge the extent to which progress is being
made.
Agency Comments:
In commenting on a draft of this report, Education generally agreed
with our findings and recommendations. Specifically, Education agreed
to broaden its monitoring of Title III and Title V programs to ensure
that appropriate information about the needs of institutions in the
area of distance learning and technology for course delivery are
considered. Education generally agreed with our second recommendation
to study the feasibility of adding questions on distance education and
information technology to existing research efforts that it carries
out. Education stated that it would explore expanding the sample of the
Postsecondary Education Quick Information System (PEQIS) to include
more Minority Serving Institutions. According to Education, PEQIS is
used to collect information on topics of national importance from
postsecondary institutions. Education used PEQIS to collect data for
three distance education studies, including the most recent, Distance
Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2000-2001,
data from which we used in this report. Also, Education stated that it
would consider our specific suggestion related to what data could be
collected from institutions under IPEDS. In addition to commenting on
our recommendations, Education offered some technical comments on the
report and we revised the draft report when appropriate. Education's
written comments are reprinted in appendix V.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until
24 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of
Education, and other interested parties. In addition, this report will
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or members of your staffs have any questions regarding this
report, please call me on (202) 512-8403. Other contacts and
acknowledgments are listed in appendix VI.
Cornelia M. Ashby
Director,
Education, Workforce, and Income Security:
Signed by Cornelia M. Ashby:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine whether the use of distance education varies between
Minority Serving Institutions and non-Minority Serving Institutions, we
developed and sent questionnaires to a fall 2000 list of 108
Historically Black Colleges and Universities,[Footnote 21] 334 Hispanic
Serving Institutions, and 32 Tribal Colleges[Footnote 22] that we
received from Education. Each type of school received a distinct
questionnaire. The questionnaires had questions on whether the
institution offered distance education, and if so, how many courses and
degree programs were offered. The response rate to each questionnaire
was 78 percent for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 75
percent for Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 82 percent for Tribal
Colleges. We compared the results of the survey with a July 2003 report
from Education's National Center for Education Statistics entitled
Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Education
Institutions: 2000-2001. This survey was sent to over 1,600 2-year and
4-year degree granting institutions that were eligible for the federal
student aid programs and provided information on distance education
offerings by these schools. We also analyzed the National Postsecondary
Student Aid Survey (NPSAS) to determine the extent that students at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving
Institutions enrolled in distance education courses. NPSAS contains
information on characteristics of students who attended postsecondary
institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities
and Hispanic Serving Institutions in the 1999-2000 school year. NPSAS
contained information on students at only one Tribal College, so we
were unable to develop similar information for students attending
Tribal Colleges. Finally, we analyzed IPEDS to develop data on the
institutional characteristics of Minority Serving Institutions.
To determine what factors account for any differences in usage of
distance education between Minority Serving Institutions and non-
Minority Serving Institutions, we developed statistics from NPSAS on
the characteristics of students enrolled in distance education and
those that were not. We conducted logistic regression--a type of
analysis that is designed to show the influence of one or several
variables on another variable to see whether student characteristics,
such as age and income influenced their involvement in distance
education at Minority Serving Institutions. We also used the results
from our survey to see if different characteristics of Minority Serving
Institutions, such as their size, location in rural or urban areas, and
type of funding sources, such as whether the school was public or
private nonprofit, had any bearing on whether the school offered
distance education. Additionally, we used the results of our survey to
see whether institutional strategies for teaching students may have had
any effect on whether schools offered distance education.
To determine what factors Minority Serving Institutions consider when
deciding whether to offer distance education, we used the results from
our survey. To determine what steps Education could take, if any, to
improve its monitoring of the results of their Title III (part A) and
(part B) and Title V (part A) programs as it relates to improvements in
technology, including distance education, we also used the results from
our survey. Additionally, we reviewed the statutes that created
programs for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic
Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges. We interviewed managers of
these programs and obtained and reviewed documents related to
Education's performance measures and goals.
To develop our survey instruments, we interviewed officials at
organizations that represent Minority Serving Institutions, including
the United Negro College Fund, the National Association for Equal
Opportunity in Higher Education, the Hispanic Association of Colleges
and Universities, and the American Indian Higher Education Consortium.
We developed and pretested our questionnaire during visits to 6
Historically Black Colleges and Universities--Morgan State University
in Baltimore, Maryland; Howard University in the District of Columbia;
Johnson C. Smith University in Charlotte, North Carolina; Xavier
University in New Orleans, Louisiana; Wiley College in Marshall, Texas;
and Texas College in Tyler, Texas. Also, we developed and pretested our
survey at 5 Hispanic Serving Institutions--San Antonio Community
College in San Antonio, Texas; University of the Incarnate Word in San
Antonio, Texas; Rio Hondo College in Whittier, California; East Los
Angeles College in Monterrey Park, California; and National Hispanic
University in San Jose, California. We also developed and pretested our
survey at 4 Tribal Colleges--Northwest Indian College in Bellingham,
Washington; Diné College in Tsaile, Arizona; Southwestern Indian
Polytechnic Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and D-Q University in
Davis, California. In addition, to obtain additional information based
on the results provided by Minority Serving Institutions, we visited
and interviewed officials at Delaware State University in Dover,
Delaware; Gavilan College in Gilroy, California; and Salish-Kootenai
College in Pablo, Montana. To obtain additional information on how non-
Minority Serving Institutions fund their distance education programs,
we visited Cabrillo College in Aptos, California; Montana Tech in
Butte, Montana; and the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware.
Finally, we reviewed studies on the history and use of technology at
Minority Serving Institutions. The studies included Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (An Assessment of Networking and
Connectivity), Department of Commerce, October 2000; Historically Black
Public Colleges and Universities: An Assessment of Current Information
Technology Usage, Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund, October 2000;
Latinos and Information Technology--The Promise and the Challenge, The
Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, February 2002; Tribal Colleges: An
Introduction, American Indian Higher Education Consortium, February
1999; and The Power of the Internet for Learning: Moving From Promise
to Practice, Report of the Web-Based Education Commission to the
President and the Congress of the United States, December 2000.
We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards between October 2002 and September 2003.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Historically Black Colleges and Universities:
In most ways, Historically Black Colleges and Universities provide the
same educational opportunities found at other schools. The Department
of Education reported that there were 102 Historically Black Colleges
and Universities in 20 states as well as the District of Columbia, and
one in the Virgin Islands that were participating in federal student
aid programs in the 2000-01 school year. Historically Black Colleges
and Universities offer a variety of degrees--from associates to
doctoral. They are comprised of technical colleges, community colleges,
public colleges, private colleges, and both religious and nonsectarian
schools. They range in size from large (12,000 students at Florida A&M)
to small (under 100 students at Clinton Junior College and Texas
College). In other ways, there are distinctions to be made between
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other schools. The
clearest distinctions are in the students they serve, and in the
histories and missions of the institutions.
History:
The 102 institutions recognized as Historically Black Colleges and
Universities were established at various times in the nation's history
in response to historical circumstances that limited educational
opportunities for Black students. The earliest of the Historically
Black Colleges and Universities precede the Civil War when
abolitionists from the North founded formal institutions of higher
learning for Black Americans. This first wave of establishing
Historically Black Colleges and Universities began in 1837, when
Richard Humphreys, a Quaker philanthropist, founded Cheyney University
of Pennsylvania, with the purpose of educating free Blacks and
emancipated slaves. Other pre-Civil War Historically Black Colleges and
Universities that were founded to educate freed slaves include Lincoln
University in Pennsylvania, founded in 1854; Wilberforce University in
Ohio, founded in 1856; and Harris-Stowe State College in Missouri,
founded in 1857.
The second wave of creating Historically Black Colleges and
Universities began after the Civil War. More than four million slaves
and free Blacks were illiterate at the time of emancipation in 1865.
Between 1870 and 1890, 13 public colleges were established, including
Virginia State University in Virginia and Claflin College in South
Carolina. The founding of private schools, however, represented the
largest portion of the second wave of school creation. Between 1865 and
1890, 37 privately supported Black colleges were created. Schools such
as these were founded and funded by missionary philanthropists who
supported education for Black Americans as a way to bring about racial
equality. Included in this group are schools such as Morehouse College
in Georgia and Stillman College in Alabama.
Federal support for Black institutions of higher education grew in the
late 1800s. This support resulted, in part, from the passage of the
Morrill Act of 1890--which prompted the third wave of creating
Historically Black Colleges and Universities in this country. Under the
Morrill Act of 1890,[Footnote 23] the Congress made available land
grants for the establishment of institutions of higher education under
the condition that land-grant schools could not discriminate in their
admissions policies based on race. States that did not want to create
integrated institutions could use the grants to create racially
segregated schools, provided that the funding was divided equitably
between the institutions. Land-grant colleges and universities were
required to teach practical industrial subjects, such as agriculture
and mechanical arts. The Morrill Act of 1890 helped to fund 20 of
today's Historically Black Colleges and Universities, including Alcorn
State University in Mississippi, Florida A&M University, and Tuskegee
University in Alabama.
The Higher Education Act was originally passed in 1965. Title III of
this act provides financial assistance to institutions of higher
education with low per-student expenditures, large numbers of
financially disadvantaged students, or a large proportion of minority
students. Title III, part B of the act provides grants to Historically
Black Colleges and Universities that are determined by the Secretary of
Education to meet the statutory definition of such
institutions.[Footnote 24] The purpose of Title III, part B is to
provide financial assistance to establish or strengthen the physical
plants, financial management, academic resources, and endowments of
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Total funding under Title
III, part B for Historically Black Colleges and Universities has
increased from $136 million, funding 98 institutions in fiscal year
1999, to $206 million, funding 99 institutions in fiscal year 2002, or
an increase of about 51 percent. Additionally, funding for graduate
program opportunities at Historically Black Colleges and Universities
has increased 50 percent from $30 million in fiscal year 1999 to $49
million in fiscal year 2002.
Characteristics of Historically Black Colleges and Universities:
In the 2000-01 school year, there were 102 Historically Black Colleges
and Universities eligible for the federal student aid programs. These
schools were located in 20 states--primarily in the Southern and
Eastern portion of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the
Virgin Islands. Our analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that while
Historically Black Colleges and Universities were only 2 percent of all
public and nonprofit postsecondary institutions, in the fall of 2000
they enrolled 14 percent (223,359) of Black non-Hispanic students in
the United States.[Footnote 25] The percent of Black non-Hispanic
students at a Historically Black College or University in the fall of
2000 ranged from 100 percent at 5 institutions (Clinton Junior College
and Morris College in South Carolina, Johnson C. Smith University in
North Carolina, Tougaloo in Mississippi, and Miles College in Alabama)
to 10 percent at Bluefield State College in West Virginia, with an
average of 85 percent. In comparison, non-Historically Black Colleges
and Universities averaged around 10 percent Black students in the fall
of 2000.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities offer a range of degrees
from different types of institutions. Degrees offered in 2000-01
included associate, bachelor, master, first professional, and doctoral.
Eighty-seven percent offered a bachelor's degree or higher. Of the 102
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, about half were private
nonprofit institutions, and about half were public institutions. There
are no private for-profit Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Additionally, there are single gender schools, such as Spelman College
in Atlanta, Georgia--a women's college--and one Catholic Historically
Black University--Xavier University in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities are generally smaller in
size, have lower tuitions, and smaller endowments than postsecondary
institutions overall.[Footnote 26] The average postsecondary
institution is 1.4 times larger than the average Historically Black
College or University. While 83 percent of Historically Black Colleges
and Universities had 5,000 students or fewer, the same is true of only
78 percent of other institutions. The largest Historically Black
University in the fall of 2000 was Florida A&M with 12,126 students,
compared to the largest non-Historically Black University, which was
the University of Texas at Austin with 50,000 students.
Two important sources of revenue for postsecondary institutions--
tuition and endowments--were both lower at Historically Black Colleges
and Universities than at other institutions. The average in-state,
undergraduate tuition at public Historically Black Colleges and
Universities was $1,993 in the 2000-01 school year. For private
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, the average undergraduate
tuition was $7,009. These same statistics for other institutions were
$2,067, and $11,480, respectively. The average market value of
institutional endowments for public schools at the end of the 2000-01
school year was about $5 million for Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, but over $51 million for other public institutions.
Endowment data on private nonprofit schools are not available in IPEDS.
Characteristics of Students at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities:
Demographic characteristics of students at Historically Black Colleges
and Universities vary somewhat from national averages for postsecondary
students. According to data from the Department of Education's 1999-
2000 NPSAS, the average undergraduate student at a Historically Black
College or University was younger than the national average of
undergraduate students (24.8 years old versus 26.4 years old).
Undergraduates at Historically Black Colleges and Universities were
also more likely to be single, dependent, and full-time students when
compared to the national average. Eleven percent of students at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities were married compared to
23 percent of students overall, and 42 percent of students at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities were independent, compared
to 49 percent of students overall. Seventy-five percent of students at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities were full-time students
compared to 52 percent overall.
Economic Characteristics:
Although tuition is generally lower at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, students who attend these schools are generally able to
contribute less to the cost of their education than are students at
non-Minority Serving Institutions. Median household family incomes are
considerably lower for Black Americans than they are for households
overall. This is reflected in one measure of a family's ability to pay
for college--the Expected Family Contribution.[Footnote 27] The
Expected Family Contribution was lower in 2000-01 for families of
students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities than it was
for families of students attending other, non-Minority Serving
Institutions. In the 2000-01 school year, the average Expected Family
Contribution for students attending public non-Minority Serving
Institutions was $659, while it was only $480 for families of students
at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Additionally, the
percentage of students receiving Pell Grants--financial aid that is
available to the neediest students in the nation--at Historically Black
Colleges and Universities was 51 percent, compared to 24 percent of
students at non-Minority Serving Institutions.
Both students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and their
parents have lower income levels than students and parents at other
institutions. In 1998, the average yearly income of independent
students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities was $24,508,
while it was $35,643 for independent students at non-Historically Black
Colleges and Universities. Also in 1998, the average yearly income of
parents of dependent, undergraduate students was 1.3 times higher for
non-Historically Black College and University parents--$48,311 for
Historically Black College and University parents, and $65,037 for non-
Historically Black College and University parents.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Hispanic Serving Institutions:
As part of the 1992 Amendments to the Higher Education Act, the
Congress stipulated that Hispanic Serving Institutions were deserving
of grant funds to address educational needs of Hispanic students.
Education reported that in the 2000-01 school year, there were 334
institutions eligible for federal student aid programs that were
located in 14 states and Puerto Rico that qualified as Hispanic Serving
Institutions, including the University of Miami and the University of
New Mexico. Degrees offered from Hispanic Serving Institutions include
associate, bachelor, master, professional, and doctoral. In the fall of
2000, the largest Hispanic Serving Institution had 46,834 students and
the smallest had 58 students.
History:
The creation of Hispanic Serving Institutions has resulted from a
growing Hispanic population, and attempts to move this population more
fully into the U.S. educational system.[Footnote 28] Recent immigration
to the United States has grown since the mid-1940s, with an increasing
percentage of these immigrants coming from Latin America. The
combination of high rates of immigration with high fertility rates
among the Hispanic population has resulted in its being the fastest
growing segment of the U.S. population and the largest minority group.
At the same time, however, Hispanics have the highest high school drop
out rate of any group in the country, and lower college enrollment and
completion rates than both blacks and whites.
In 1992, the Congress added a new section to the Higher Education Act
of 1965 authorizing a grant program for Hispanic Serving
Institutions.[Footnote 29] An institution is considered a Hispanic
Serving Institution if its enrolled undergraduate full-time equivalent
student population is at least 25 percent Hispanic and not less than 50
percent of the institution's Hispanic students are low-income
individuals. The purpose of the grants is to expand educational
opportunities for, and improve the academic attainment of, Hispanic
students; and expand and enhance the academic offerings, program
quality, and instructional stability of colleges and universities that
are educating the majority of Hispanic college students and helping
large numbers of Hispanic students and other low-income individuals
complete postsecondary degrees. In 1995, the first grantees[Footnote
30]--37 schools for a 5-year period--were funded after $12 million was
appropriated for the program. In 1998, the Congress moved the
provisions authorizing grants to Hispanic Serving Institutions to Title
V of the Higher Education Act. In fiscal year 1999 the appropriation
was raised to $28 million. By 2002, 172 of the 334 Hispanic Serving
Institutions received $86.1 million in grant funds under Title V.
Characteristics of Hispanic Serving Institutions:
In the 2000-01 school year, there were 334 Hispanic Serving
Institutions that were eligible for federal student aid programs
located in 14 states and Puerto Rico.[Footnote 31] Our analysis of the
2000-01 IPEDS shows that while Hispanic Serving Institutions were only
5 percent of all postsecondary institutions in the fall of 2000, they
enrolled 48 percent (798,489) of all Hispanic students.[Footnote 32]
The percent of Hispanic students at a Hispanic Serving Institution
varied from 25 percent at ITT Technical Institute in California to 100
percent at 60 institutions in Puerto Rico.
Hispanic Serving Institutions offer a range of degrees--associate,
bachelor, master, professional, and doctoral--from different types of
institutions. For 60 percent of the institutions, an associate's degree
is the highest degree offered, and the other 40 percent offered a
bachelor's degree or higher. Of the 334 Hispanic Serving Institutions,
45 percent were public, 23 percent were private nonprofit, and 32
percent were private for-profit institutions. Hispanic Serving
Institutions are generally larger in size than postsecondary
institutions overall.[Footnote 33] The average Hispanic Serving
Institution in the fall of 2000 was more than two times larger than the
average postsecondary institution overall. The largest Hispanic Serving
Institution at that time was Miami Dade Community College in Florida,
with 46,834 students, while the largest non-Hispanic Serving
Institution was the University of Texas at Austin, with 50,000
students. In the fall of 2000 there were 9 Hispanic Serving
Institutions with more than 25,000 students.
Two important sources of revenue for postsecondary institutions--
tuition and endowments--were lower at public and private nonprofit
Hispanic Serving Institutions than at non-Hispanic Serving
Institutions. The average in-state undergraduate tuition at public
Hispanic Serving Institutions was $1,083 in the 2000-01 school year.
For private nonprofit Hispanic Serving Institutions, the average
undergraduate tuition was $7,202, and for private for-profit Hispanic
Serving Institutions it was $8,830. These same statistics for non-
Hispanic Serving Institutions were $2,151, $11,542, and $8,745,
respectively. The average market value of institutional endowments for
public postsecondary institutions at the end of the 2000-01 school year
was about $15.3 million for Hispanic Serving Institutions, compared to
$52.1 million for non-Hispanic Serving Institutions. Endowment data on
private nonprofit schools are not available in IPEDS.
Characteristics of Hispanic Students at Hispanic Serving Institutions:
Demographic characteristics of Hispanic students at Hispanic Serving
Institutions vary somewhat from national averages for all postsecondary
students.[Footnote 34] According to data from the 1999-2000 Department
of Education's National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, the average
Hispanic undergraduate student at a Hispanic Serving Institution was
slightly younger than the national average of undergraduate students
(25.5 years versus 26.4 years). Similar to the national average for
undergraduates, about half of Hispanic undergraduates at Hispanic
Serving Institutions were independent and about half were full-time
students. Hispanic undergraduate students at Hispanic Serving
Institutions were more likely to work full-time when compared to
undergraduate students overall--44 percent of Hispanic undergraduates
at Hispanic Serving Institutions worked full-time compared to 39.3
percent of students overall.
Economic Characteristics:
Although tuition is generally lower at Hispanic Serving Institutions,
students who attend Hispanic Serving Institutions are generally able to
contribute less to the cost of their education than are students from
non-Minority Serving Institutions; Median household family incomes are
considerably lower for families of Hispanic origin than they are for
white, non-Hispanics. This is reflected in one measure of a family's
ability to pay for college--the Expected Family Contribution.[Footnote
35] On average, the Expected Family Contribution was lower in 2000-01
for families of students at Hispanic Serving Institutions than it was
for families of students attending other, non-Minority Serving
Institutions--$449 compared to $659. Additionally, the percentage of
students receiving Pell Grants--financial aid that is available to the
neediest students in the nation--at Hispanic Serving Institutions was
31 percent, compared to 24 percent of students at non-Minority Serving
Institutions.
Both students at Hispanic Serving Institutions and their parents have
lower income levels than other institutions. The average yearly income
of independent students at Hispanic Serving Institutions in 1998 was
$28,921, while it was $35,501 for independent students overall. For
Hispanic students attending Hispanic Serving Institutions, the average
income is even lower, at $26,193. The average yearly income of the
parents of dependent, undergraduate students in 1998 was 1.5 times
higher for non-Hispanic Serving Institution parents--$43,675 for
Hispanic Serving Institution parents, and $67,034 for non-Hispanic
Serving Institution parents.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Tribal Colleges:
Tribal Colleges were founded to educate students both in Western models
of learning, as well as in traditional American Indian cultures and
languages. This dual mission of Tribal Colleges distinguishes them from
other colleges and universities. The Department of Education reported
that there were 29 Tribal Colleges in 12 states participating in
federal student aid programs in the 2000-01 school year.[Footnote 36]
All of these colleges offered associate degrees, 2 offered bachelor's
degrees, and 2 offered master's degrees. In the fall of 2000, the
largest Tribal College had less than 2,000 students.
History:
The history of Tribal Colleges is rooted in the desire of tribes to
have greater control in the education of their members--called self-
determination--and in the desire to improve access to postsecondary
educational opportunities for American Indians. The Navajo tribe
founded the first Tribal College, Diné College (formerly Navajo
Community College), in 1968. By 1980, 20 Tribal Colleges, such as
Blackfeet Community College in Montana, Northwest Indian College in
Washington, and Sinte Gleska University in South Dakota, had been
founded by various tribes. Tribal Colleges were often modeled after
community colleges and shared community college philosophies of open
admissions, job training, and community development along with local
control and dedication to local needs.
For hundreds of years, the education system in the United States almost
always sought to assimilate American Indians into a cultural and
educational backdrop that was largely European. For example, in the
nineteenth century, boarding schools were created with the intent of
separating American Indian youth from their heritage and culture.
However, beginning about 1968, the federal government moved toward a
policy of tribal self-determination that included a greater set of
tools and resources so that tribes could better control their own
educational activities. For example, the Indian Self Determination and
Education Assistance Act[Footnote 37] was passed in 1975, and in part,
called for "assuring maximum Indian participation in the direction of
educational as well as other federal services to Indian communities.":
Concurrent to the self-determination movement, as the result of the GI
Bill[Footnote 38] of 1944 and the Higher Education Act of 1965, a
college education became more accessible to all Americans, including
American Indians. Tribes, including the Blackfeet, the Chippewa, and
the Standing Rock Sioux created colleges in response to the growing
interest on the part of American Indians in obtaining a college
education.
While many Tribal Colleges offer degrees in areas of study frequently
found at other postsecondary institutions, such as accounting,
education, computer science, and nursing, they also offer courses and
degrees unique to their tribes or to Tribal Colleges. For example:
* DQ University in Davis, California, offers associate of arts degrees
in Native American fine arts, as well as in indigenous studies. They
also offer certificates in gaming administration and in Indian dispute
resolution.
* Diné College in Arizona offers associate degrees in Navajo culture,
history, and language, and Navajo bilingual/bicultural education.
* Oglala Lakota Community College in South Dakota has an associate of
arts degree in tribal management, as well as a bachelor of arts in
Lakota studies.
One source of federal support for Tribal Colleges is through the Higher
Education Act of 1965.[Footnote 39] Title III of the act provides
financial assistance to institutions of higher education with low per-
student expenditures, large numbers of financially disadvantaged
students, or a large proportion of minority students. Title III, part A
provides grants to American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and
Universities, as defined by federal statute.[Footnote 40] The purpose
of Title III, part A is to assist eligible institutions to become self-
sufficient by providing funds to improve and strengthen their academic
quality, institutional management, and fiscal stability. In fiscal year
1999, 8 Tribal Colleges received a total of $3 million under Title III,
part A. By fiscal year 2002, 27 Tribal Colleges received $17.5 million.
Characteristics of Tribal Colleges:
In the 2000-01 school year, there were 29 Tribal Colleges[Footnote 41]
located in 12 states that were eligible for federal student aid
programs. Our analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that while Tribal
Colleges were less than 1 percent of all public and not-for-profit
postsecondary institutions, they enrolled 8 percent of American Indian/
Alaska Native students in the United States, serving 11,262
students.[Footnote 42] The percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native
students in the student body at Tribal Colleges averaged 85 percent in
fall 2000 and ranged from 100 percent (at Crownpoint Institute of
Technology in New Mexico, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in
New Mexico, Institute of American Indian Arts in New Mexico, Haskell
Indian Nations University in Kansas, and Stone Child College in
Montana) to 21 percent (at Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College in
Minnesota). In comparison, other U.S. colleges and
universities[Footnote 43] averaged around 1 percent American Indian
students in fall 2000.
Tribal Colleges are typically community colleges, and therefore,
offered less variety in the types of degrees offered, as well as the
type of institution compared to other U.S. colleges and universities.
In addition, they were much smaller on average than other U.S. colleges
and universities. While there were 2 Tribal Colleges whose highest
degree offered was a master's degree in 2000-01 (Oglala Lakota College
and Sinte Gleska College) and 2 whose highest degree offered was a
bachelor's degree (Haskell Indian Nations University and Salish
Kootenai College), 25, or 86 percent, reported an associate degree as
their highest degree offered. All 29 of the Tribal Colleges received
funding from the federal government. There were no private for-profit
Tribal Colleges. The average U.S. college or university was eight times
larger than the average Tribal College. The largest Tribal College,
Diné College in Arizona, enrolled 1,712 students in the fall of 2000.
In comparison, the University of Texas at Austin was the largest
university in the nation, with an enrollment of almost 50,000 students.
Two important revenue sources for postsecondary institutions--tuition
and endowments--were both lower at Tribal Colleges than at other U.S.
colleges and universities. The average in-state, undergraduate tuition
at Tribal Colleges was $2,017 in the 2000-01 school year.[Footnote 44]
The average in-state, undergraduate tuition at non-Tribal public
colleges was $2,132 for the same year. The average market value of
institutional endowments for public schools at the end of their 1999-
2000 fiscal year was over $57 million for those non-Tribal Colleges
that reported having endowments, but under $1.8 million for the 15
Tribal Colleges that reported having endowments. Endowment data on
private nonprofit schools are not available in IPEDS.
Characteristics of Students Attending Tribal Colleges:
The database used to generate characteristics of students at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and at Hispanic Serving
Institutions--NPSAS--only contained information on 1 Tribal College. As
a result, we were unable to compile data on characteristics of students
attending Tribal Colleges. A report issued by the American Indian
Higher Education Consortium, however, provides such information.
According to the 1999 report, the typical Tribal College student was a
single mother in her early 30s. According to the same report, in the
fall of 1996, 64 percent of Tribal College undergraduates were women,
as compared to 56 percent of undergraduates at all public institutions.
The report cites the average age of Tribal College students in 1997 as
31.5 years old, while NPSAS data from 2000 shows the average age of
undergraduate students overall to be 26.4 years old. The consortium
also stated that half of all Tribal College students attended school on
a part-time basis, which is a similar rate to undergraduate students
overall.
Economic Characteristics:
[End of section]
Although tuition is lower, students who attend Tribal Colleges are
generally able to contribute less to the cost of their education than
are students at non-Minority Serving Institutions. Median household
family incomes are considerably lower on Indian reservations than they
are in the rest of the country. This is reflected in one measure of a
family's ability to pay for college--the Expected Family
Contribution.[Footnote 45] The Expected Family Contribution was lower
in 2000-01 for families of Tribal College students than it was for
families of students attending other, non-Minority Serving
Institutions. In the 2000-01 school year, the average Expected Family
Contribution for students attending public non-Minority Serving
Institutions was $659, while it was only $259 for Tribal College
students. Additionally, the percentage of students receiving Pell
Grants--financial aid made available to the neediest students in the
nation--at Tribal Colleges was 60 percent, compared to 24 percent of
students at non-Minority Serving Institutions. Again, because NPSAS
data are not available for Tribal Colleges, we were unable to compile
further information on the economic status of students and their
parents.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY
EDUCATION:
AUG 21 2003:
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY:
Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby Director, Education, Workforce, and Income
Security Issues United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC
20548:
Dear Ms. Ashby:
Thank you for providing the Department of Education with a draft copy
of the U.S. General Accounting Office's (GAO's) report entitled
"Distance Education: More Data Could Improve Education's Ability to
Track Technology at Minority Serving Institutions" (GAO-03-900). I
understand that GAO expects to publish the final report next month.
This study focuses on the state of distance education at Minority
Serving Institutions (MSIs) and reviews (1) the use of distance
education at MSIs, (2) key factors influencing these schools' decisions
about whether or not to offer distance education, and (3) steps the
Department of Education (the Department) could take, if any, to improve
its monitoring of technological progress under the Titles III and V
programs. I was pleased to learn that the use of distance education at
MSIs is consistent with national averages and MSIs are fully
participating in the use of technology to deliver courses as evidenced
by 57 percent of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs),
64 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 61 percent of Tribal
Colleges offering at least a course via distance learning.
In this report, you recommend that the Department (1) direct managers
of the Title III and Title V programs to broaden their tracking systems
so that they are applied in a more complete manner to the different
types of MSIs, and (2) study the feasibility of adding questions on
distance education and information technology to existing research
efforts carried out by the Department.
As you point out, one of our annual performance goals is to increase
the technological capacity of MSIs. We agree that the Department should
broaden its monitoring of the Title III and Title V programs to ensure
that we have appropriate information about the needs of institutions in
the area of distance learning and technology for course delivery. The
programs authorized by Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act of
1965 address the specific needs of different types of institutions of
higher education that generally serve substantial numbers of low-income
students and have limited financial resources. However, each program
has its own unique application and reporting requirements that are
necessarily responsive to the specific needs of the institutions and
the students that they serve. Thus, our efforts to expand monitoring in
these programs must continue to reflect these differences in program
requirements, institutional characteristics, and
student body. Some of these differences and teaching preferences are
reflected in the report.
With regard to the broader issue of adding questions on distance
education and information technology to the Department's existing
research efforts, the draft report refers to the need to examine the
potential use of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS). As you note in the report, the National Center for Education
Statistics (LACES) has been examining the question of whether to add
items to IPEDS on distance learning and information technology. While
LACES has been working with the higher education community, to identify
possible items related to distance learning and information technology,
there is currently no consensus among higher education institutions on
what data should be collected annually.
For this reason, LACES has used the Postsecondary Education Quick
Information System (PEQIS) to collect data on this issue. PEQIS is
designed to conduct brief surveys of postsecondary institutions or
state higher education agencies on postsecondary education topics of
national importance. LACES has conducted three studies of distance
learning using PEQIS on distance education. The most recent report,
Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions:
2000-2001, released last month, presents data from a nationally
representative survey on distance education at degree-granting
postsecondary institutions. The data provide a national "snapshot" on
the status of distance education in 2000-2001, including information
about institutions offering distance education courses, distance
education enrollments and course offerings, degree and certificate
programs, and distance education technologies. In addition,
institutions were asked to report on program goals, factors keeping
institutions from starting or expanding their distance education
programs, participation in distance education consortia, and
information on issues related to accommodations for students with
disabilities.
The new report shows that during the 12-month 2000-2001 academic year,
56 percent (2,320) of all 2-year and 4-year Title IV-eligible degree-
granting institutions offered distance education courses for any level
or audience, (i.e., courses designed for all types of students,
including elementary and secondary, college, adult education,
continuing and professional education, etc.) In addition, 12 percent of
all institutions indicated that they planned to start offering distance
education courses in the next three years; 31 percent did not offer
distance education courses in 2000-2001 and did not plan to offer these
types of courses in the next three years.
The report also concluded that public institutions were more likely to
offer distance education courses than were private institutions. In
2000-2001, 90 percent of public 2-year and 89 percent of public 4-year
institutions offered distance education courses, compared with 16
percent of private 2-year and 40 percent of private 4-year
institutions. College-level, credit-granting distance education
courses at either the undergraduate or
graduate/first-professional level were offered by 55 percent of all 2-
year and 4-year institutions. College-level, credit-granting distance
education courses were offered at the undergraduate level by 48 percent
of all institutions, and at the graduate level by 22 percent of all
institutions. These findings at the national level appear to track
closely to the trends identified in the draft report.
The previous two studies Distance Education in Higher Education
Institutions (Lewis, Alexander, and Farris 1997), which collected
information for 1994-95, and Distance Education at Postsecondary
Institutions: 1997-98 (Lewis et al. 1999)-looked at slightly different
populations.
As I indicated above, we have found that our approach of using sample
surveys through PEQIS has provided a national perspective on a wide
variety of topics related to distance learning across various
categories of institutions. We will explore expanding the sample to
include additional MSIs. In addition, we would certainly consider more
specific suggestions for what data we should collect from institutions
under IPEDS.
I appreciate your examination of this important issue. Under separate
cover, we have provided to your staff some technical comments on the
report. The Department of Education is committed to the continued
development of distance education, especially at Minority-Serving
Institutions.
Sincerely,
Sally L. Stroup:
Signed by Sally L. Stroup:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Contacts:
Kelsey Bright, Assistant Director (202) 512-9037 Neil Asaba, Analyst-
in-Charge (206) 287-4774:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Jerry Aiken, Susan Baker, Jessica
Botsford, Julian Fogle, Chris Hatscher, Joel Grossman, Cathy Hurley,
John Mingus, Jill Peterson, Doug Sloane, Stan Stenersen, and Susan
Zimmerman made important contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] These include institutions in territories of the United States,
such as Puerto Rico and Guam, that are authorized to distribute federal
student financial aid.
[2] The three main types of Minority Serving Institutions are
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges, and
Hispanic Serving Institutions. Other types of Minority Serving
Institutions include Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian serving
institutions.
[3] 20 U.S.C. 1093(h).
[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Distance Education: Growth in
Distance Education Programs and Implications for Federal Education
Policy, GAO-02-1125T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 2002).
[5] NPSAS is a nationwide survey conducted every 3 to 4 years that
collects demographic information on postsecondary students, as well as
information on how postsecondary students fund their education. NPSAS
randomly samples about 19 million students attending over 6,000
institutions eligible for the federal student aid programs. The most
recent NPSAS covers the 1999-2000 school year.
[6] IPEDS is a system of surveys designed to collect data from all
primary providers of postsecondary education. These surveys collect
institution-level data in such areas as enrollments, program
completions, faculty, staff, and finances. Data are collected annually
from approximately 9,600 postsecondary institutions, including over
6,000 institutions eligible for the federal student aid programs.
[7] Pub. L. No. 102-325, § 302(d) (1992).
[8] Pub. L. No. 105-244, § 303(e) (1998).
[9] Although NPSAS contained data allowing us to develop information on
the economic status of students and families at Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, this
database contained data on students at only one Tribal College. The
Pell Grant information is the only other information we were able to
develop from Education's databases.
[10] All Tribal Colleges also receive a majority of their operating
funds from various federal sources, such as the Tribally Controlled
College or University Assistance Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-471
(1978). Whether they receive state funding, however, varies from state
to state.
[11] Federal aid also flows to these institutions in a number of other
forms. For example, students at these colleges or universities are
eligible for the federal student aid programs, including Pell Grants
and other funding for low-income students, such as student loans and
work-study funds. In addition, other federal entities, such as the
National Science Foundation, the Department of Agriculture, and the
Department of Defense have programs that Minority Serving Institutions
could use to improve information technology on their campuses.
[12] The Web-Based Education Commission, The Power of the Internet for
Learning: Moving from Promise to Practice. (Washington D.C.: December
2000).
[13] Department of Education's National Center for Education
Statistics, Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary
Institutions: 2000-2001. (Washington D.C.: July 2003).
[14] Our survey and Education's survey are also different in the way
that information was summarized. For example, Education's survey
aggregates all private nonprofit schools and private for-profit schools
as private schools. Our survey breaks out these types of schools into
separate categories.
[15] The two most common modes of delivering distance education for
Minority Serving Institutions were (1) on-line courses using a computer
and (2) live courses transmitted via videoconference.
[16] Logistic regression procedures are often used to estimate the size
and significance of the associations of different factors, such as
marital status, age, and family income with a discrete or categorical
outcome, such as whether a student did (or did not) take a distance
education course in the past year.
[17] Forty-four percent of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, 37 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 39
percent of Tribal Colleges do not offer any distance education.
[18] Education recognizes the importance of its research to
policymakers and other users. Education stated in its 2002-03 annual
plan that it will focus Education's research activities on topics of
greatest relevance. In this regard, the Congress has expressed interest
in information technology at Minority Institutions. In April 2003, the
Senate passed S. 196, Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Technology Opportunity Act of 2003 to strengthen technology
infrastructure at Minority Serving Institutions. If enacted, this
statute would create a new grant program at the National Science
Foundation for funding technology improvements at institutions that
serve a high percentage of minority students.
[19] The Department of Education's National Center for Education
Statistics has produced several reports on distance education,
including Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary
Institutions: 2000-2001 (Washington D.C.: July 2003) and Distance
Education Instruction by Postsecondary Faculty and Staff: Fall 1998
(Washington D.C.: February 2002). While the reports provide aggregate
data on distance education, they do not provide data on distance
education at Minority Serving Institutions.
[20] 5 C.F.R., part 1320.
[21] When we analyzed the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System (IPEDS), we limited our work to the 102 Historically Black
Colleges and Universities that were eligible for the federal student
aid programs. For our survey instrument, we received a list of 108
Historically Black Colleges and Universities from Education. Five of
the schools were not eligible for federal student aid programs in 2000-
01 (Carver State Technical College; Selma University; Shorter College;
Natchez College, and Knoxville College). A sixth school, Hinds
Community College-Utica Campus had reported itself as part of the main
campus by the time we conducted our analysis of IPEDS.
[22] When we analyzed IPEDS, we limited our work to the 29 Tribal
Colleges eligible for the federal student aid programs. For our survey
instrument, we received a list of 32 Tribal Colleges from Education.
Three of the schools were not eligible for the federal student aid
program in 2000-01 (Si Tanka College; White Earth Tribal and Community
College, and Medicine Creek Tribal College).
[23] During the Civil War, in 1862, the Congress passed the First
Morrill Act, which provided funding in the form of land grants to
states for founding institutions of higher education. Land-grant
colleges were intended to educate students in agriculture and the
mechanical arts.
[24] The definition of Historically Black Colleges and Universities,
found at 20 U.S.C. 1061(2) is threefold. First, Historically Black
Colleges and Universities had to be established before 1964. Second,
the institution's principal mission had to be then, as now, the
education of Black Americans. Third, the institution must be accredited
by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined
by the Secretary of Education to be a reliable authority as to the
quality of training offered, or is, according to such an agency or
association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation.
[25] The calculations in this section are based on data for the 2000-01
school year. This was the most current complete dataset available. This
section excludes institutions not eligible for the federal student aid
programs and for-profit institutions. The for-profit institutions are
excluded because there are no for-profit Historically Black Colleges
and Universities.
[26] Postsecondary institutions refer to all public and private
nonprofit schools eligible for the federal student aid programs.
[27] Expected Family Contribution is a formula that considers family
income; accumulated savings; the amount of taxes paid; family size; the
number of children simultaneously enrolled in college; the age of the
older parent and how close they may be to retirement; and the student's
own financial resources. See 20 U.S.C. § 1087nn.
[28] People of Hispanic origin were those who indicated that their
origin was Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or
some other Hispanic origin. Hispanics may be of any race.
[29] Pub. L. No. 102-325 § 302(d) (1992).
[30] Funds are awarded as 5-year grants, with a mandatory 2-year wait
out period before an institution can reapply.
[31] These 334 Hispanic Serving Institutions include branch campuses.
For example, there are 16 campuses of ITT Technical Institute that are
counted as separate Hispanic Serving Institutions.
[32] The calculations in this section are based on data for the 2000-01
school year. This was the most current complete dataset available. The
calculations exclude institutions that were not eligible for federal
student aid programs.
[33] Postsecondary institutions overall refers to all institutions that
were eligible for federal student aid programs, including those that
offer less than an associate degree. All Hispanic Serving Institutions
offer at least an associate degree.
[34] Students at Hispanic Serving Institutions refers to both Hispanic
and non-Hispanic students, unless otherwise noted.
[35] Expected Family Contribution is a formula that considers family
income; accumulated savings; the amount of taxes paid; family size; the
number of children simultaneously enrolled in college; the age of the
older parent and how close they may be to retirement; and the student's
own financial resources. See 20 U.S.C. § 1087nn.
[36] The Department of Education listed 3 other Tribal Colleges where
students were not eligible for the federal student financial aid
programs.
[37] Pub. L. No. 93-638 (1975).
[38] Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, ch. 268, 58 Stat. 284.
[39] Other sources of federal aid for Tribal Colleges include the
Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978, Land
Grant Funding, and the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
[40] 25 U.S.C. 1801(a)(4). The definition of a tribally controlled
college or university is an institution of higher education, which is
formally controlled, or has been formally sanctioned, or chartered, by
the governing body of an Indian tribe or tribes, except that no more
than one such institution shall be recognized with respect to any such
tribe.
[41] In 2002, the number increased by 3 to 32.
[42] The calculations in this section are based on data for the 2000-01
school year. This was the most current complete dataset available.
These calculations exclude institutions that were not eligible for
federal student aid programs and for-profit institutions. The for-
profit institutions are excluded because there are no for-profit Tribal
Colleges.
[43] References to "other U.S. colleges and universities" includes
institutions located in U.S. territories, both public and private
nonprofit.
[44] This figure is based on 22 Tribal Colleges who reported tuition
charges.
[45] Expected Family Contribution is a formula that considers family
income; accumulated savings; the amount of taxes paid; family size; the
number of children simultaneously enrolled in college; the age of the
older parent and how close they may be to retirement; and the student's
own financial resources. It is defined in the Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1087nn.
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 ( 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
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" 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: 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:
