Distance Education: Challenges for Minority Serving Institutions and Implications for Federal Education Policy
Published: 2003-10-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Higher Education Act of 1965 gives special recognition to some postsecondary schools--called Minority Serving Institutions--that serve a high percentage of minority students. These and other schools face stiff challenges in keeping pace with technology. One rapidly growing area, distance education, has commanded particular attention and an estimated 1.5 million students have enrolled in at least one distance education course. In light of this, GAO was asked to provide information on: (1) the use of distance education by Minority Serving Institutions; (2) the challenges Minority Serving Institutions face in obtaining and using technology; (3) GAO's preliminary finding on the role that accrediting agencies play in ensuring the quality of distance education; and (4) GAO's preliminary findings on whether statutory requirements limit federal aid to students involved in distance education. GAO is currently finalizing the results of its work on (1) the role of accrediting agencies in reviewing distance education programs and (2) federal student financial aid issues related to distance education.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: There are some variations in the use of distance education at Minority Serving Institutions when compared to other schools. While it is difficult to generalize, Minority Serving Institutions offered at least one distance education course at the same rate as other schools. When Minority Serving Institutions offered distance education, they did so to improve access for students who live away from campus and provide convenience to older, working, or married students. Some Minority Serving Institutions do not offer distance education because classroom education best meets the needs of their students. Additionally, schools view the overall use of technology as a critical tool in educating their students and they generally indicated that offering more distance education was a lower priority than using technology to educate their classroom students. The two primary challenges in meeting technology goals cited by these institutions were limitations in funding and inadequate staffing to maintain and operate information technology. Accrediting agencies have taken steps to ensure the quality of distance education programs, such as developing supplemental guidelines for reviewing these programs. However, GAO found (1) no agreed upon set of standards for holding institutions accountable for student outcomes and (2) differences in how agencies review distance education programs. Finally, several statutory rules limit the amount of federal aid for distance education students. GAO estimates that at least 14 schools are not eligible or could lose their eligibility for federal student financial aid if their distance education programs continue to expand. While the number of schools potentially affected is relatively small in comparison to the more than 6,000 postsecondary institutions in the country, this is an important issue for the nearly 210,000 students who attend these schools. Several factors must be considered before deciding whether to eliminate or modify these rules. They include the cost of implementation, the extent to which the changes improve access, and the impact that changes would have on Education's ability to prevent schools from fraudulent or abusive practices.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:  I am pleased to be here today to discuss issues related to distance  education and its implications for federal programs that support  postsecondary schools serving a high percentage of minority students and  for the federal student financial aid programs that exceeded $60 billion in  2003. For over 100 years, the Congress has recognized that some  postsecondary institutions—including the University of Texas Pan- American—have unique roles to play in educating minority students.  These schools serve a high proportion of minority students and have  special designation under federal law as Minority Serving Institutions.Like other postsecondary institutions, over the last decade, Minority  Serving Institutions have faced the challenge of trying to keep pace with  the changing face of technology in education. One rapidly growing area—  distance education—has commanded particular attention on campuses  around the world. In the 1999-2000 school year, an estimated 1.5 million  postsecondary students, or about 1 in 13 students, enrolled in at least one  distance education course, and the Department of Education (Education)  estimates that the number of students involved in distance education has  tripled in just 4 years. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, will  be reauthorized within the coming year. Among other purposes, the act  provides federal support for Minority Serving Institutions through Titles III  and V, including support for technological improvements at these schools.  Title IV of the act authorizes the federal government to provide grants,  loans, and work-study wages for millions of postsecondary students each  year; however, there are limits on some financial aid to distance education  students.
Given the changes in how education is being offered, you asked us to  testify on the following issues: (1) the use of distance education by  Minority Serving Institutions compared to non-Minority Serving  Institutions; (2) the challenges Minority Serving Institutions face in  obtaining and using technology and how Education monitors  technological progress at these schools; (3) our preliminary findings on  the role that accrediting agencies play in ensuring the quality of distance  education programs; and (4) our preliminary findings on whether statutory  requirements limit federal student aid for students involved in distance  education. In addition to this statement, we are releasing a report today on  distance education at Minority Serving Institutions. This report discusses  many of these issues in more detail. We will issue a second report in  December 2003 on accrediting agencies and statutory and regulatory  issues related to distance education.
Our statement is based on responses to distinct surveys developed and  sent to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving  Institutions, and Tribal Colleges; data on distance education produced by  Education; analysis of Education databases; visits to seven accrediting  agencies responsible for reviewing two-thirds of all distance education  programs; and interviews with Education officials, accreditors, and  officials of schools with substantial distance education programs. We  performed our work between October 2002 and September 2003 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
There are some variations in the use of distance education at Minority  Serving Institutions and other schools. While it is difficult to generalize  across Minority Serving Institutions, Minority Serving Institutions tend to  offer at least one distance education course at the same rate as other  schools, but they differ in how many courses are offered and which  students take the courses. 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 offered fewer classes, and a smaller percentage of  minority students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities take such  courses. When Minority Serving Institutions offered distance education,  they did so to (1) improve access to courses for some students who live  away from campus and (2) provide convenience to older, working, or  married students. By design, some Minority Serving Institutions indicated  that they do not offer distance education because they prefer classroom  education to best meet the needs of their students.
Minority Serving Institutions, like other schools, face stiff challenges in  keeping pace with the rapid changes and opportunities presented by  information technology. Minority Serving Institutions view the use of  technology as a critical tool in educating their students and they generally  indicated that offering more distance education was a lower priority than  using technology to educate their classroom students. For example, all  three types of 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. More than four  out of five Minority Serving Institutions indicated that they expect to have  difficulties in meeting their goals related to technology. The two primary  challenges cited by Minority Serving Institutions were (1) limitations in  funding and (2) inadequate staffing to maintain and operate information  technology. With respect to how Education monitors technological  improvements at Minority Serving Institutions, we found that Education  could develop better data to improve their ability to track technological  improvements at Minority Serving Institutions. Specifically, we found that  progress could be made by collecting more complete data on technology  improvements across the three major types of Minority Serving  Institutions and by developing baseline data to measure progress on the  technological capacity at Minority Serving Institutions.
Based on our ongoing work, we have preliminary findings on the role that  accrediting agencies play in ensuring the quality of distance education  programs and information on certain statutory requirements that limit  federal financial aid to distance education students. Uncertainty about the  quality of distance education programs has turned attention toward what  accrediting agencies do to ensure the quality of distance education  programs. Our preliminary analysis shows that while accrediting agencies  have taken steps to ensure the quality of distance education programs,  such as developing supplemental guidelines for reviewing distance  education programs, there are two areas that potentially could merit  further attention. First, there is no agreed upon set of standards that  accrediting agencies use in holding postsecondary institutions accountable  for student outcomes. Second, there are differences in their procedures  for reviewing distance education programs—for example, some agencies  require institutions to demonstrate comparability between distance  education programs and campus-based programs, while others do not.
Finally, also based on our preliminary work, we found that several  statutory rules—designed to prevent fraud and abuse in distance  education—limit federal aid for distance education students. We estimate  that at least 14 schools are not eligible or could lose their eligibility for  participation in the federal student financial aid programs if their distance  education programs continue to expand. While the number of schools  potentially affected is relatively small in comparison to the more than  6,000 postsecondary institutions in the country, this is an important issue  for the nearly 210,000 students who attend these schools. Deciding  whether to eliminate or modify these rules involves consideration of  several other factors, including the cost of implementation, the extent to  which the changes improve access to postsecondary schools, and the  impact that changes would have on Education’s ability to prevent  institutions from fraudulent or abusive practices.
We are currently finalizing the results of our work on (1) the role of  accrediting agencies in reviewing distance education programs and (2)  federal student financial aid issues related to distance education. A report  on these issues will be available in December 2003.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Minority Serving Institutions vary in size and scope but generally serve a  high percentage of minority students, many of whom are financially  disadvantaged. In the 2000-01 school year, 465 schools, or about 7 percent  of postsecondary institutions in the United States, served about 35  percent of all Black, American Indian, and Hispanic students. Table 1  briefly compares the three main types of Minority Serving Institutions in  terms of their number, type, and size.
The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, provides specific federal  support for Minority Serving Institutions through Titles III and V. These  provisions authorize grants for augmenting the limited resources that  many Minority Serving Institutions have for funding their academic  programs. 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, both inside the  classroom and, in the form of distance education, 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 or place  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. These students may need considerable  exposure to technology to be fully equipped with job-related skills.
The growth of distance education has added a new dimension to  evaluating the quality of postsecondary education programs. Federal  statutes recognize accrediting agencies as the gatekeepers of  postsecondary education quality. To be eligible for the federal student aid  program, a school must be periodically reviewed and accredited by such  an agency. Education, in turn, is responsible for recognizing an accrediting  agency as a reliable authority on quality. While the accreditation process  applies to both distance education and campus-based instruction, many  accreditation practices focus on the traditional means of providing  campus-based education, such as the adequacy of classroom facilities or  recruiting and admission practices. These measures can be more difficult  to apply to distance education when students are not on campus or may  not interact with faculty in person. In this new environment,  postsecondary education officials are increasingly recommending that  outcomes—such as course completion rates or success in written  communication—be incorporated as appropriate into assessments of  distance education.
The emphasis on student outcomes has occurred against a backdrop of the  federal government, state governments, and the business community  asking for additional information on what students are learning for the  tens of billions of taxpayer dollars that support postsecondary institutions  each year. While there is general recognition that the United States has  one of the best postsecondary systems in the world, this call for greater  accountability has occurred because of low completion rates among low- income students (only 6 percent earn a bachelors degree or higher),  perceptions that the overall 6-year institutional graduation rate (about 52  percent) at 4-year schools and the completion rate at 2-year schools (about  33 percent) are low, and a skills gap in problem solving, communications,  and analytical thinking between what students are taught and what  employers need in the 21st Century workplace.
For the most part, students taking distance education courses can qualify  for financial aid in the same way as students taking traditional courses. As  the largest provider of student financial aid to postsecondary students, 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. There are limits, however, on the use of federal  student aid at schools with large distance education offerings. Concerns  about the quality of some correspondence courses more than a decade ago  led the Congress, as a way of controlling fraud and abuse in federal  student aid programs, to impose restrictions on the extent to which  schools could offer distance education and still qualify to participate in  federal student aid programs. The rapid growth of distance education and  emerging delivery modes, such as Internet-based classes, have led to  questions about whether these restrictions are still needed and how the  restrictions might affect students’ access to federal aid programs. 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.
section_title: Distance Education Use Varies between Minority Serving Institutions and Other Schools, with Some Minority Serving Institutions Choosing Not to Offer Any Distance Education
paragraphs: There are some variations in the use of distance education at Minority  Serving Institutions and other schools. While it is difficult to generalize  across the Minority Serving Institutions, the available data indicate that  Minority Serving Institutions tend to offer at least one distance education  course at the same rate as other schools, but 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 surveys of Minority Serving  Institutions. 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, 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.
We found that Minority Serving Institutions offered distance education  courses for two main reasons: (1) they improve access to courses for  some students who live away from campus and (2) they provide  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 for  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.
Not all schools wanted to offer distance education, however, and we found  that almost 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. Here are examples from 2 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 4 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.
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 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, needed technological infrastructure is not there—that is,  schools may be limited to the technology of the surrounding 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.
section_title: Minority Serving Institutions Face Sizable Challenges in Using Technology, Including Distance Education, and Education’s Efforts to Monitor Technology Could Be Improved
paragraphs: Minority Serving Institutions, like other schools, face stiff challenges in  keeping pace with the rapid changes and opportunities presented by  information technology and Education could improve how technological  progress is monitored. Minority Serving Institutions view the use of  technology as a critical tool in educating their students. With respect to  their overall technology goals, Minority Serving Institutions viewed using  technology in the classroom as a higher priority than offering distance  education. (See fig. 1.) Other priorities included improving network  infrastructure and providing more training for faculty in the use of  information technology as a teaching method.
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. However, officials told us that they have no  means to fund this alternative.
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 improving technology at postsecondary schools.  About 75 percent of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 70  percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 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.
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 has made progress in monitoring the technological progress of  Minority Serving Institutions; however, its efforts could be improved in  two ways. First, 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. Education’s tracking system  appears to include sufficient information on technology at Hispanic  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 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 is available at  schools.
Committee hearings such as this, reinforce the importance of effective  monitoring and good data collection efforts. As the Congress considers the  status of programs that aid Minority Serving Institutions, or examines  creating new programs for improving technology capacity at these  institutions, it will be important that agencies adequately track how  students benefit from expenditures of substantial federal funds. Without  improved data collection efforts, programs are at risk of granting funds  that may not benefit students.
section_title: Accrediting Agencies Have Made Progress in Ensuring the Quality of Distance Education Programs; However, Two Areas May Merit Attention
paragraphs: Accrediting agencies have made progress in ensuring the quality of  distance education programs. For example, they have developed  supplemental guidelines for evaluating distance education programs and  they have placed additional emphasis on evaluating student outcomes.  Additionally, the Council on Higher Education Accreditation—an  organization that represents accrediting agencies—has issued guidance  and several issue papers on evaluating the quality of distance education  programs. Furthermore, some accrediting agencies have called attention  to the need for greater consistency in their procedures because distance  education allows students to enroll in programs from anywhere in the  country. While progress has been made, our preliminary work has  identified two areas that may potentially merit attention.
While accrediting agencies have made progress in reviewing the quality of  distance education programs, there is no agreed upon set of standards for  holding schools accountable for student outcomes. In terms of progress  made, for example, the Council on Higher Education Accreditation has  issued guidance on reviewing distance education programs. In addition,  some agencies have endorsed supplemental guidelines for distance  education and four of the seven agencies have revised their standards to  place greater emphasis on student learning outcomes. Not withstanding  the progress that has been made, we found that agencies have no agreed  upon set of standards for holding institutions accountable for student  outcomes. Our preliminary work shows that one strategy for ensuring  accountability is to make information on student achievement and  attainment available to the public, according to Education. The Council on  Higher Education Accreditation and some accrediting agencies are  considering ways to do this, such as making program and institutional data  available to the public; however, few if any of the agencies we reviewed  currently have standards that require institutions to disclose such  information to the public.
The second issue involves variations in agency procedures for reviewing  the quality of distance education. For example, agency procedures for  reviewing distance education differ from one another in the degree to  which agencies require institutions to have measures that allow them to  compare their distance learning courses with their campus-based courses.  Five agencies require institutions to demonstrate comparability between  distance education programs and campus-based programs. For example,  one agency requires that “the institution evaluate the educational  effectiveness of its distance education programs (including assessments of  student learning outcomes, student retention, and student satisfaction) to  ensure comparability to campus-based programs.” The two other agencies  do not explicitly require such comparisons.
section_title: Certain Statutory Requirements Limiting Federal Aid to Students Involved in Distance Education May Cause Some Students to Lose Eligibility for Such Aid
paragraphs: Finally, we found that if some statutory requirements—requirements that  were designed to prevent fraud and abuse in distance education—remain  as they are, increasing numbers of students will lose eligibility for the  federal student aid programs. Our preliminary work shows that 9 schools  that are participating in Education’s Distance Education Demonstration  Program collectively represent about 200,000 students whose eligibility  for financial aid could be adversely affected without changes to the 50  percent rule—a statutory requirement that limits aid to students who  attend institutions that have 50 percent or more of their students or  courses involved in distance education. As part of the demonstration  program, 7 of the 9 schools received waivers from Education to the 50  percent rule so that their students can continue to receive federal financial  aid. We identified 5 additional schools representing another 8,500 students  that are subject to, or may be subject to, the rule in the near future if their  distance education programs continue to expand. These 5 schools have  not received waivers from Education.
While the number of schools currently affected is small in comparison to  the over 6,000 postsecondary schools in the country, this is an important  issue for more than 200,000 students who attend these schools. In deciding  whether to eliminate or modify these rules, the Congress and the  Administration will need to ensure that changes to federal student aid  statutes and regulations do not increase the chances of fraud, waste, and  abuse to federal student financial aid programs.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be happy to respond to  any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee might have.
section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information, please contact Cornelia M. Ashby at (202) 512- 8403. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include Jerry Aiken, Neil Asaba, Kelsey Bright, Jill Peterson, and Susan Zimmerman.
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. However, 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.