Distance Education: Improved Data on Program Costs and Guidelines on Quality Assessments Needed to Inform Federal Policy
Published: 2004-02-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Distance education--that is, offering courses by Internet, video, or other forms outside the classroom--has changed considerably in recent years and is a growing force in postsecondary education. More than a decade ago, concerns about fraud and abuse by some correspondence schools led to federal restrictions on, among other things, the percentage of courses a school could provide by distance education and still qualify for federal student aid. Given the recent changes in distance education, GAO was asked to review the extent to which the restrictions affect schools' ability to offer federal student aid and the Department of Education's assessment of the continued appropriateness of the restrictions. Additionally, GAO was asked to look at the extent to which accrediting agencies evaluate distance education programs, including their approach for assessing student outcomes.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: While federal restrictions on the size of distance education programs affect only a small number of schools' ability to offer federal student aid, the growing popularity of distance education could cause the number to increase in the future. GAO found that 14 schools were either now adversely affected by the restrictions or would be affected in the future; collectively, these schools serve nearly 225,000 students. Eight of these schools, however, will remain eligible to offer federal student aid because they have been granted waivers from the restrictions by Education. Education granted the waivers as part of a program aimed at assessing the continued appropriateness of the restrictions given the changing face of distance education. In considering the appropriateness of the restrictions, there are several policy options for amending the restrictions; however, amending the restrictions to improve access would likely increase the cost of the federal student aid programs. One way to further understand the effect of amending the restrictions would be to study data on the cost of granting the waivers to schools, but Education has yet to develop this information. The seven accrediting agencies GAO reviewed varied in the extent to which they included distance education programs in their reviews of postsecondary institutions. All seven agencies had developed policies for reviewing these programs; however, there were differences in how and when they reviewed the programs. Agencies also differed in the extent to which they included an assessment of student outcomes in their reviews. GAO's work in examining how organizations successfully focus on outcomes shows that they do so by (1) setting measurable goals for program outcomes, (2) developing strategies for meeting these goals, and (3) disclosing the results of their efforts to the public. Measured against this approach, only one of the seven accrediting agencies we reviewed had policies that require schools to satisfy all three components. As the key federal link to the accreditation community, Education could play a pivotal role in encouraging an outcomes-based model.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: As the largest provider of student financial aid to postsecondary students,  the federal government has a substantial interest in the quality of courses  and programs offered by postsecondary schools. In fiscal year 2003,  students at more than 6,000 postsecondary schools received about   $60 billion in loans and grants through federal student aid programs.  Distance education—that is, taking courses by computer, by television, or  by correspondence—is an increasing part of the educational landscape in  which students pursue a degree or certificate. During the 1999-2000 school  year, for example, an estimated 1.5 million students, or about 1 of every   13 postsecondary students, took at least one telecommunications distance  education course.
Recent changes in distance education call into question the continued  relevance of federal policies designed to limit the extent to which schools  can deliver distance education courses and still qualify to participate in the  federal student aid programs. A school is not eligible to participate in the  federal student aid programs if the school (1) offers more than half of its  courses through correspondence, (2) has half or more of its students  enrolled in correspondence courses, or (3) offers correspondence and  telecommunication courses that amount to half or more of all courses.  Collectively, these restrictions are known as the “50-percent rules.” More  than a decade ago concerns about widespread fraud and abuse at some  correspondence schools led the Congress to enact these limiting policies  in order to protect the federal student aid programs. The rapid growth of  distance education at mainstream schools, primarily through newer  delivery modes such as Internet-based classes, have led to questions about  whether these restrictions are still the most appropriate way to guard  against fraud and abuse. In 1998, the Congress authorized the Department  of Education (Education) to administer a Distance Education  Demonstration Program (Demonstration Program) to, among other things,  evaluate these restrictions.
A change in federal policy to reduce the restrictions might result in an  increased reliance on the work of accrediting agencies to ensure program  quality and guard against fraud and abuse. These agencies already review  schools’ programs, including distance education, for quality assurance  purposes. To be eligible for the federal student aid programs, a school  must be periodically reviewed and accredited by an agency recognized by  Education. In doing so, Education, is responsible for determining that  agencies have certain standards and procedures in place for evaluating  educational quality. While the accreditation process applies to both  distance education and campus-based instruction, many accreditation  practices focus on campus-based education, such as the adequacy of  classroom facilities or instructional time spent with students. 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 student-learning outcomes—such as course  completion rates or success in problem solving and written  communication—be incorporated into assessments of distance education  programs and campus-based programs.
In this context, and in light of the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher  Education Act of 1965, as amended (Higher Education Act), you asked us  to review various issues with respect to distance education. For this  report, we reviewed both quality control approaches for distance  education—federal restrictions on the size of distance education programs  and accreditation reviews of distance education courses. Separately from  this effort, we reported to you on issues related to the demographic  characteristics of distance education students and the use of distance  education by Minority Serving Institutions. For this report, as agreed with  your offices, we focused our work on the following four questions:    To what extent do current federal restrictions on distance education affect  schools’ ability to offer federal student aid to their students?
What has Education’s Demonstration Program revealed with respect to the  continued appropriateness of these restrictions?
To what extent do accreditation agencies include distance education in  their reviews of schools or programs?
As they evaluate distance education and campus-based programs, to what  extent do accreditation agencies assess student-learning outcomes?
To address the two questions about current statutory and regulatory  restrictions on federal aid, we obtained information from Education and  other experts on how many of the over 6,000 postsecondary institutions  had been affected by these provisions or might be affected in the future— that is, schools that might reach the limitations on the size of their  distance education programs if their growth in this area continues. We  interviewed officials at each of the institutions whose eligibility for the  student aid programs had been affected or could be affected by the  restrictions to determine the extent to which their ability to offer federal  student aid to their students had been impacted. We also interviewed  officials at Education who are responsible for assessing distance  education issues and reviewed monitoring reports on participating  institutions involved in the Demonstration Program and annual reports to  the Congress. To address questions related to the work of accrediting  agencies, we focused on the policies of seven accrediting agencies that  collectively are responsible for more than two-thirds of all distance  education programs. We evaluated the extent that the agencies assess  student learning outcomes using criteria that we had developed in a  variety of past work addressing performance and accountability issues.  We conducted our work between October 2002 and February 2004 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. See  appendix I for further explanation of our approach and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Distance education is a growing force in postsecondary education, and its  rise has implications for the federal student aid programs. Studies by  Education indicate that enrollments in distance education quadrupled  between 1995 and 2001. By the 2000-2001 school year, nearly 90 percent of  public 4-year institutions were offering distance education courses,  according to Education’s figures. Entire degree programs are now  available through distance education, so that a student can complete a  degree without ever setting foot on campus. Students who rely extensively  on distance education, like their counterparts in traditional campus-based  settings, often receive federal aid under Title IV of the Higher Education  Act, as amended, to cover the costs of their education, though their  reliance on federal aid is somewhat less than students who are not  involved in any distance education. We previously reported that 31 percent  of students who took their entire program through distance education  received federal aid, compared with 39 percent of students who did not  take any distance education courses.
There is growing recognition among postsecondary officials that changes  brought about by the growing use of distance education need to be  reflected in the process for monitoring the quality of schools’ educational  programs. Although newer forms of distance education—such as  videoconferencing or Internet courses—may incorporate more elements  of traditional classroom education than older approaches like  correspondence courses, they can still differ from a traditional educational  experience in many ways. Table 1 shows some of the potential differences.
The Higher Education Act focuses on accreditation—a task undertaken by  outside agencies—as the main tool for ensuring quality in postsecondary  programs. Under the act, accreditation for purposes of meeting federal  requirements can only be done by agencies that are specifically  “recognized” by Education. In all, Education recognizes 62 accrediting  agencies. Some, such as Middle States Association of Colleges and  Schools – Commission on Higher Education and the Western Association  of Schools and Colleges – Accrediting Commission for Community and  Junior Colleges, accredit entire institutions that fall under their geographic  or other purview. Others, such as the American Bar Association—Council  of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, accredit  specific programs or departments. Collectively, accrediting agencies cover  public and private 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities as well as  for-profit vocational schools and nondegree training programs. Thirty-nine  agencies are recognized for the purpose of accrediting schools or  programs for participation in the federal student aid programs. Education  is required to recognize or re-recognize these agencies every 5 years.
In order to be recognized by Education as a reliable authority with regard  to educational quality, accrediting agencies must, in addition to meeting  certain basic criteria, establish standards that address 10 broad areas of  institutional quality, including student support services, facilities and  equipment, and success with respect to student achievement. While the  statute provides that these standards must be consistently applied to an  institution’s courses and programs of study, including distance education  courses and programs, it also gives accrediting agencies flexibility in  deciding what to require under each of the 10 areas, including flexibility in  whether and how to include distance education within the accreditation  review. The current accreditation process is being carried out against a  public backdrop of concern about holding schools accountable for student  learning outcomes. For example, concerns have been expressed about  such issues as the following:    Program completion—the percentage of full-time students who graduate  with a 4-year postsecondary degree within 6 years of initial enrollment was  about 52 percent in 2000.
Unprepared workforce—business leaders and educators have pointed to a  skills gap between many students’ problem solving, communications, and  analytical thinking ability and what the workplace requires.
To address concerns such as these, there is increased interest in using  outcomes more extensively as a means of ensuring quality in distance  education and campus-based education. The Council for Higher Education  Accreditation—a national association representing accreditors—has  issued guidelines on distance education and campus-based programs, that,  among other things, call for greater attention to student learning  outcomes. Additionally, in May 2003, we reported that 18 states are  promoting accountability by publishing the performance measures of their  colleges and universities, including retention and graduation rates,  because some officials believe that this motivates colleges to improve their  performance in that area. At the national level, Education stated in its   2004 annual plan that it will propose to hold institutions more accountable  for results, such as ensuring a higher percentage of students complete  their programs on-time. The congressionally appointed Web-based  Education Commission has also called for greater attention on student  outcomes. The Commission said that a primary concern related to  program accreditation is that “quality assurance has too often measured  educational inputs (e.g., number of books in the library, etc.) rather than  student outcomes.” Finally, the Business Higher Education Forum—an  organization representing business executives and leaders in  postsecondary education—has said that improvements are needed in  adapting objectives to specific outcomes and certifiable job-skills that  address a shortage of workers equipped with analytical thinking and  communication skills.
section_title: Current Federal Restrictions on Distance Education Affect Few Schools’ Ability to Offer Federal Student Aid, but Numbers Could Increase in the Future
paragraphs: Although current federal restrictions on the extent to which schools can  offer programs by distance education and still qualify to participate in  federal student aid programs affect a small number of schools, the growing  popularity of distance education could cause the number to increase in the  future. We found that 14 schools were either now adversely affected by the  restrictions or would be affected in the future; collectively, these schools  serve nearly 225,000 students. Eight of the 14 schools are exempt from the  restrictions because they have received waivers as participants in  Education’s Demonstration Program, under which schools can remain  eligible to participate in the student aid programs even if the percentage of  distance education courses or the percentage of students involved in  distance education rises above the maximums set forth in the law. Three  of the remaining 5 schools in the Demonstration Program are negotiating  with Education to obtain a waiver.
The 14 schools that the current federal restrictions—called the 50-percent  rules—affect, or nearly affect, are shown in table 2. They vary in a number  of respects. For example, 2 are large (the University of Phoenix has nearly  170,000 students and the University of Maryland University College has  nearly 30,000), while 5 have fewer than 1,000 students. Six of the 14 are  private for-profit schools, 5 are private nonprofit schools, and 3 are public.  Thirteen of the schools are in Education’s Demonstration Program, and  without the waivers provided under this program, 8 of the 13 would be  ineligible to participate in federal student aid programs because 50 percent  or more of their students are involved in distance education. One school  that is not part of the Demonstration Program faces a potential problem in  the near future because of its growing distance education programs.
Two examples from among the 14 schools will help illustrate the effect  that the restrictions on the size of distance education programs have on  schools and their students.
The University Maryland University College, a public institution, located in  Adelphi, Maryland, had nearly 30,000 students and more than 70 percent of  its students took at least one Internet course in the 2000-2001 school year.  The college is participating in Education’s Demonstration Program and  has received waivers to the restrictions on federal student aid for schools  with substantial distance education programs. According to university  officials, without the waivers, the college and about 10,000 students  (campus-based and distance education students) would no longer receive  about $65 million in federal student aid.
Jones International University, a private for-profit school founded in   1993 and located in Englewood, Colorado, served about 450 students in  the 2000-2001 school year. The university offers all of its programs online  and offers no campus-based courses. The university has received  accreditation from the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools,  a regional accrediting agency that reviews institutions in 19 states. In  August 2003, school administrators told us that they would be interested in  federal student program eligibility in the future. In December 2003, the  school became a participant in Education’s Demonstration Program and,  therefore, its students will be eligible for federal student aid when  Education approves the school’s administrative and financial systems for  managing the federal student aid programs.
section_title: According to Education, the Demonstration Program Has Not Revealed Negative Consequences of Waiving the Current Federal Restrictions on Distance Education
paragraphs: In the second of two congressionally mandated reports on federal laws  and regulations that could impact access to distance education, Education  concluded, “he Department has uncovered no evidence that waiving the  50-percent rules, or any of the other rules for which waivers were  provided, has resulted in any problems or had negative consequences.” In  its report, Education also stated that there is a need to amend the laws and  regulations governing federal student financial aid to expand distance  education opportunities, and officials at Education recognize that several  policy options are available for doing so. A significant consideration in  evaluating such options is the cost to the federal student aid programs.  Regarding these costs, Education has not provided data on the cost of  granting waivers to the 50-percent rules in the first two reports on the  Demonstration Program.
Based in part on our discussions with Education officials and proposals  made by members of Congress, there appear to be three main options for  consideration in deciding whether to eliminate or modify the current  federal restrictions on distance education: (1) continuing the use of case- by-case waivers, as in the current Demonstration Program, coupled with  regular monitoring and technical assistance; (2) offering exceptions to  those schools with effective controls already in place to prevent fraud and  abuse, as evidenced by such characteristics as low default rates; or   (3) eliminating the rules and imposing no additional management controls.  Evaluating these options involves three main considerations: the extent to  which the changes improve access to postsecondary schools, the impact  the changes would have on Education’s ability to prevent institutions from  fraudulent or abusive practices, and the cost to the federal student aid  programs and to monitor schools with substantial distance education  programs. Our analysis of the three options, as shown in table 3, suggests  that while all three would improve students’ access to varying degrees, the  first two would likely carry a lower risk of fraud and abuse than the third,  which would eliminate the rules and controls altogether. We also found  support for some form of accountability at most of the 14 schools that  current restrictions affect or nearly affect. For example, officials at 11 of  these schools said they were generally supportive of some form of  accountability to preserve the integrity of the federal student aid programs  rather than total elimination of the restrictions.
The first option would involve reauthorizing the Demonstration Program  as a means of continuing to provide schools with waivers or other relief  from current restrictions. Even though exempting schools from current  restrictions on the size of distance education programs costs the federal  student aid programs, Education has yet to describe the extent of the costs  in its reports on the program. According to Education staff, developing the  data on the amount of federal student aid could be done and there are no  major barriers to doing so. The data would prove valuable in determining  the potential costs of various policy options since the program is  expanding in scope—five new schools joined in December 2003—and  additional reports will need to be prepared for the Congress.
Our review of the Demonstration Program and our discussions with  Education officials surfaced two additional considerations that would be  worthwhile addressing if the Congress decided to reauthorize the  program. They relate to streamlining Demonstration Program  requirements and improving resource utilization.
Reducing paperwork requirements. When the Congress authorized the  Demonstration Program, it required that Education evaluate various  aspects of distance education, including the numbers and types of  students participating in the program and the effective use of different  technologies for delivering distance education. These requirements now  may be redundant since Education collects such information as part of its  National Postsecondary Student Aid Study and other special studies on  distance education. Eliminating such requirements could ease the  paperwork burden on participating institutions and Education staff.
Limiting participation to schools that are adversely affected by federal  restrictions. Some schools participating in the Demonstration Program do  not need waivers to the 50-percent rules, because their programs are not  extensive enough to exceed current restrictions. Limiting participation in  the program to only schools that need relief from restrictions on the size  of distance education programs could ease the administrative burden on  Education. However, in the future, more schools may be interested in  receiving waivers if their distance education programs expand.
section_title: Accrediting Agency Reviews of Distance Education Varies
paragraphs: The seven accrediting agencies we reviewed varied in the extent to which  their institutional reviews included distance education. While all seven  agencies had adopted standards or policies calling for campus-based and  distance education programs to be evaluated using the same standards,  the agencies varied in (1) the extent to which agencies required schools to  demonstrate that distance education and campus-based programs were  comparable and (2) the size a distance education program had to be  before it was formally included in the overall institutional review. While  the Higher Education Act requires Education to ensure that accrediting  agencies have standards and policies in place regarding the quality of  education, including distance education, it gives the agencies latitude with  regard to the details of setting their standards or policies. Differences in  standards or policies do not necessarily lead to differences in educational  quality, but if one accrediting agency’s policies and procedures are more  or less rigorous than another’s, the potential for quality differences may  increase. An Education official said the historical role of the federal  government in exerting control over postsecondary education has been  limited. Similarly, Education has limited authority to push for greater  consistency in areas related to the evaluation of distance education.
subsections: section_title: Accrediting Agency Actions for Evaluating Distance Education Programs
paragraphs: The agencies we reviewed all had standards or policies in place for  evaluating distance education programs. The Higher Education Act does  not specify how accrediting agencies should review distance education  programs, but instead directs them to cover key subject areas, such as  student achievement, curricula, and faculty. The law does not specify how  accrediting agencies are to develop their standards or what an appropriate  standard should be. All seven agencies had a policy stating that the  standards they would apply in assessing a school’s distance education  programs would be the same as the standards used for assessing campus- based programs. The six regional accrediting agencies within this group  had also adopted a set of supplemental guidelines to help schools assess  their own distance education programs.
While all the agencies had standards or policies in place for evaluating  distance education and campus-based learning, we found variation among  the agencies in the degree to which they required institutions to compare  their distance learning courses with their campus-based courses. Five of  the seven agencies, including the one national accrediting agency  reviewed, required schools to demonstrate comparability between  distance education programs and campus-based programs. For example,  one agency required each school to 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.” Another accrediting agency  required that the successful completion of distance education courses and  programs be similar to those of campus-based courses and programs. The  remaining two accrediting agencies did not require schools to demonstrate  comparability in any tangible way.
A second area in which variations existed is in the threshold for deciding  when to conduct a review of a distance education program. While  accrediting agencies complete their major review of a school on a  multiyear cycle, federal regulations provide they also must approve  “substantive changes” to the accredited institutions’ educational mission  or program. The regulations prescribe seven types of change, such as a  change in the established mission or objectives of the institution, that an  agency must include in its definition of a substantive change for a school.  For example, starting a new field of study or beginning a distance  education program might both be considered a substantive change for a  school. However, the seven agencies vary in their definition of  “substantive” so the amount of change needed for such a review to occur  varies from agency to agency. Three of the seven agencies review distance  education programs when at least half of all courses in a program are  offered through distance learning. A fourth agency reviews at an earlier  stage—when 25 percent or more of a degree or certificate program are  offered through distance learning. The remaining three agencies have still  other polices for when they initiate reviews of distance education  programs.
section_title: Education’s Role and Responsibility in Monitoring Accrediting Agencies Is Limited
paragraphs: The variations among accrediting agencies that we found probably result  from the statutory latitude provided to accrediting agencies in carrying out  their roles. For example, in the use of their varying policies and practices,  the agencies are operating within the flexible framework provided under  the Higher Education Act. Such variations likewise do not necessarily lead  to differences in how effectively agencies are able to evaluate educational  quality. However, the lack of consistently applied procedures for matters  such as comparing distance education and campus-based programs or  deciding when to incorporate reviews of new distance education programs  could potentially increase the chances that some schools are being held to  higher standards than others. Additionally, the flexible framework of the  Higher Education Act extends to the requirements that accrediting  agencies set for schools in evaluating student learning outcomes. In  discussions on this matter, Education officials indicated that the law’s  flexibility largely precludes them from being more prescriptive about the  standards, policies, or procedures that accrediting agencies should use.
section_title: Accrediting Agency Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes in Their Reviews Varies Considerably
paragraphs: The seven accrediting agencies we reviewed varied in the extent to which  their standards and policies address student-learning outcomes for either  campus-based or distance education courses or programs. Over the past  decade, our work on outcomes-based assessments in a variety of different  areas shows that when organizations successfully focus on outcomes, they  do so through a systematic approach that includes three main  components. The three are (1) setting measurable and quantifiable goals  for program outcomes, (2) developing strategies for achieving these goals,  and (3) disclosing the results of their efforts to the public. The accrediting  agencies we reviewed generally recognized the importance of outcomes,  but only one of the seven had an approach that required schools to cover  all three of these components.
subsections: section_title: Successful Implementation of Outcomes-Based Approach Generally Involves Three Main Components
paragraphs: The three-part approach we found being used to successfully implement  an outcomes-based management strategy was based on our assessments  across a wide spectrum of agencies and activities, including, for example,  the Federal Emergency Management Agency working with local  governments and the building industry to strengthen building codes to  limit deaths and property losses from disaster and the Coast Guard  working with the towing industry to reduce marine casualties. Briefly,  here are examples of how these three components would apply in an  educational setting.
Developing measurable and quantifiable goals. It is important that  outcome goals be measurable and quantifiable, because without such  specificity there is little opportunity to determine progress objectively. A  goal of improving student learning outcomes would require measures that  reflect the achievement of student learning. For example, a goal of  improving student learning outcomes would need to be translated into  more specific and measurable terms that pertain directly to a school’s  mission, such as an average state licensing examination score or a certain  job placement rate. Other measures could include test scores measuring  writing ability, the ability to defend a point orally, or analyze critically, and  work habits, such as time management and organization skills.
Developing strategies for achieving the goals. This component involves  determining how human, financial, and other resources will be applied to  achieve the goals. In education, this component could include such  strategies as training for faculty, investments in information technology, or  tutoring programs to help improve skills to desired levels. This component  helps align an organization’s efforts towards improving its efficiency and  effectiveness. Our work has shown that providing a rationale for how the  resources will contribute to accomplishing the expected level of  performance is an important part of this component.
Reporting performance data to the public. Making student learning  outcome results public is a primary means of demonstrating performance  and holding institutions accountable for results. Doing so could involve  such steps as requiring schools to put distance learning goals and student  outcomes (such as job placement rates or pass rates on state licensing  examinations) in a form that can be distributed publicly, such as on the  school’s Web site. This would provide a basis for students to make more  informed decisions on whether to enroll in distance education programs  and courses. It would also provide feedback to schools on where to focus  their efforts to improve performance. Education’s 2002-2007 strategic plan  calls for public disclosure of data by stating, “n effective strategy for  ensuring that institutions are held accountable for results is to make  information on student achievement and attainment available to the  public, thus enabling prospective students to make informed choices  about where to attend college and how to spend their tuition dollars.”  Similarly, in September 2003, the Council for Higher Education  Accreditation stated that “institutions and programs should routinely  provide students and prospective students with information about student  learning outcomes and institutional and program performance in terms of  these outcomes” and that accrediting organizations should “establish  standards, policies and review processes that visibly and clearly expect  institutions and programs to discharge  responsibilities.”
section_title: Most Accrediting Agencies Lacked One or More Components
paragraphs: The accrediting agencies we reviewed generally recognized the  importance of student learning outcomes and had practices in place that  embody some aspects of the outcomes-based approach. However, only  one of the agencies required schools to have all three components in  place.
Developing measurable and quantifiable goals. Five of seven agencies  had standards or policies requiring that institutions develop measurable  goals. For example, one accrediting agency required institutions to  formulate goals for its distance learning programs and campus-based  programs that cover student achievement, including course completion  rates, state licensing examination scores, and job placement rates. Another  accrediting agency required that schools set expectations for student  learning in various ways. For example, the agency required institutions to  begin with measures already in place, such as course and program  completion rate, retention rate, graduation rate, and job placement rate.
We recognize that each institution will need to develop its own measures  in a way that is aligned with its mission, the students it serves, and its  strategic plans. For example, a 2-year community college that serves a  high percentage of low-income students may have a different mission,  such as preparing students for 4-year schools, than a major 4-year  institution.
Developing strategies for achieving the goals. All of the agencies we  visited had standards or policies requiring institutions to develop  strategies for achieving goals and allocating resources. For example, one  agency had a standard that requires institutions to effectively organize the  human, financial, and physical resources necessary to accomplish its  purposes. Another agency had a standard that an institution’s student  development services must have adequate human, physical, financial, and  equipment resources to support the goals of the institution. In addition,  the standard requires that staff development to be related to the goals of  the student development program and should be designed to enhance staff  competencies and awareness of current theory and practice. Our prior  work on accountability systems, however, points out that when  measurable goals are not set, developing strategies may be less effective  because there is no way to measure the results of applying the strategies  and no way of determining what strategies to develop.
Our visits to the accrediting agencies produced specific examples of  schools they reviewed that had tangible results in developing strategies for  meeting distance education goals. One was Old Dominion University,  which had collected data on the writing skills of distance education  students. When scores by distance learners declined during an academic  year, school administrators identified several strategies to improve  students’ writing abilities. They had site directors provide information on  tutoring to students and directed students to writing and testing centers at  community colleges. In addition, they conducted writing workshops at  sites where a demonstrated need existed. After putting these strategies in  place, writing test scores improved.
Reporting performance data to the public. Only one of the agencies had  standards or policies requiring institutions to disclose student learning  outcomes to the public. However, various organizations, including the  Council for Higher Education Accreditation, are considering ways to make  the results of such performance assessments transparent and available to  the public. Among other things, the Council is working with institutions  and programs to create individual performance profiles or to expand  existing profiles. The Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act of  1990 offers some context for reporting performance data to the public.  This act requires schools involved in the federal student loan programs to  disclose, among other things, completion or graduation rates and, if  applicable, transfer-out rates for certificate- or degree-seeking, full-time,  first-time undergraduates. In this regard, Education is considering ways  to make available on its Web site the graduation rates of these schools.  However, according to two postsecondary experts, the extent that schools  make such information available to prospective students may be uneven.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The federal government has a substantial interest in the quality of  postsecondary education, including distance education programs. As  distance education programs continue to grow in popularity, statutory  restrictions on the size of distance education programs—put in place to  guard against fraud and abuse in correspondence schools—might soon  result in increasing numbers of distance education students losing  eligibility for federal student aid. At the same time, some form of control is  needed to prevent the potential for fraud and abuse. Over the past few  years, the Department of Education has had the authority to grant waivers  to schools in the Demonstration Program so that schools can bypass  existing statutory requirements. The waivers offer schools the flexibility to  increase the size of their distance education programs while remaining  under the watchful eye of Education. Education is required to evaluate the  efficacy of these waivers as a way of determining the ultimate need for  changing the statutory restrictions against distance education. To do so,  the Department would need to develop data on the cost to the federal  student aid programs of granting waivers to schools. Developing such data  and evaluating the efficacy of waivers would be a helpful step in providing  information to the Congress about ways for balancing the need to protect  the federal student aid programs against fraud and abuse while potentially  providing students with increased access to postsecondary education.
In addition to administering the federal student aid programs, Education is  responsible for ensuring the quality of distance education through the  postsecondary accreditation process. Among other things, measures of the  quality of postsecondary education include student-learning outcomes,  such as the extent to which students complete programs and/or the extent  to which students’ performance improves over time. As distance education  programs proliferate, challenges with evaluating these programs mount  because accreditation procedures were developed around campus-based,  classroom learning. There is growing awareness in the postsecondary  education community that additional steps may be needed to evaluate and  ensure the quality of distance education and campus-based programs,  though there is far less unanimity about how to go about it. Several  accrediting agencies have taken significant steps towards applying an  outcome-based, results-oriented approach to their accreditation process,  including for distance education. These steps represent a potential set of  “best practices” that could provide greater accountability for the quality of  distance education. Due to the autonomous nature of accrediting agency  operations, Education cannot require that all accrediting agencies adopt  these practices. It could, however, play a pivotal role in encouraging and  fostering the use of an outcomes-based model. In the long run, if the  practices of accrediting agencies remain so varied that program quality is  affected, Education may need additional authority to bring about a more  consistent approach. Finally, if Education wishes to hold schools more  accountable for the quality of distance education and campus-based  programs—such as ensuring that a minimum percentage of students  complete their programs—aligning the efforts of accrediting agencies to  ensure that these factors are measured could increase the likelihood for  success in this area. Indeed, a more systematic approach by accrediting  agencies could help Education in its effort to focus greater attention on  evaluating schools and educational policy through such outcomes.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: To better inform federal policymakers, we recommend that the Secretary  of Education include data in future Demonstration Program reports on the  potential cost to the federal student aid programs of waiving the   50-percent rules. To enhance oversight of distance education quality, we  recommend that the Secretary of Education, (1) develop, with the help of  accrediting agencies and schools, guidelines or a mutual understanding for  more consistent and thorough assessment of distance education programs,  including developing evaluative components for holding schools  accountable for such outcomes and (2) if necessary, request authority  from the Congress to require that accrediting agencies use these guidelines  in their accreditation efforts.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: In commenting on a draft of this report, Education generally agreed with  our findings and the merits of our recommendations. For instance,  Education said that it will consider the potential cost of the federal  student aid programs of eliminating the 50-percent rules; however, due to  the timing of the process of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act,  Education believes it is unlikely these estimates will become part of a  future report to Congress on the Demonstration Program. While we can  appreciate the difficulties surrounding the timing of the reauthorization,  we believe that policymakers would be better informed if this information  was provided to them as part of the Demonstration Program. Given the  uncertainty about whether Congress will indeed amend the 50-percent  rules as part of reauthorization and that the timing of such changes is  uncertain, providing information on the costs of the waivers would appear  to have value—especially since such information would, in part, carry out  the spirit of Demonstration Program requirements.
With respect to our recommendation for accreditation, Education said that  it would study it carefully. Education agrees that it could engage in a  series of discussions with accrediting agencies and schools leading to  guidance on assessment and public disclosure of information. Education,  however, said that the results would be largely informational because the  agencies would not be required to adopt the guidance, and Education is  not convinced of the necessity or appropriateness of requiring the  guidance via the Higher Education Act.  Again, we can appreciate  Education's position on this issue, but continue to believe that greater  accountability for student learning outcomes is necessary for enhanced  oversight of distance education programs. Given Education's stated desire  to hold institutions more accountable for results, such as ensuring a higher  percentage of students complete their programs on time, working with  accrediting agencies to develop guidelines or a mutual understanding of  what this involves would be one management tool for doing so.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education,  appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov. Please call me at (202) 512-8403 if you or your staffs  have any questions about this report. Other contacts and  acknowledgments are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To address the two questions about the extent to which current federal  restrictions on distance education affect schools’ ability to offer federal  student aid to their students and what the Department of Education’s  Distance Education Demonstration Program has revealed with respect to  the continued appropriateness of these restrictions, we obtained  information from Education staff and other experts on which  postsecondary institutions might be affected by these provisions or were  close to being affected. We limited our work primarily to schools that were  involved in the Demonstration Program or had electronically transmitted  distance education programs and that were accredited or pre-accredited  by accrediting agencies recognized by Education for eligibility in the  federal student aid programs. We initially interviewed officials at   21 institutions with a standard set of questions regarding the effect, if any,  current federal restrictions have on the schools’ ability to offer federal  student aid, and we obtained information on the distance education  programs at the schools. Based on our interviews, we determined that only  14 of the 21 schools had been affected or could be affected by the  restrictions. We also obtained data on default rates at the 14 schools, if  applicable, from Education’s student loan cohort default rate database.  With respect to the Demonstration Program, we interviewed officials at  Education who were responsible for assessing distance education issues.  Additionally, we reviewed monitoring and progress reports on  participating institutions involved in the Demonstration Program. We  reviewed various reports on federal restrictions related to distance  education as well as pertinent statutes and regulations.
To address the two questions related to the work of accrediting agencies:  To what extent do accreditation agencies include distance education in  their reviews of schools or programs and as they evaluate distance  education programs and campus-based programs, to what extent do  accreditation agencies assess educational outcomes, we focused on the  standards and policies of seven accrediting agencies that collectively are  responsible for more than two-thirds of all distance education programs.  We interviewed agency administrators and evaluated the extent of their  outcomes-based assessment standards and policies using criteria that we  had developed in a variety of past work addressing performance and  accountability issues. We compared accrediting agency standards and  policies with prior work we conducted on key components for  accountability. We provided our preliminary findings to the seven  accrediting agencies and asked them to verify our initial findings. In  addition, we interviewed staff at Education involved in accreditation  issues. We reviewed Education’s monitoring reports on accreditation  agencies. Additionally, we interviewed officials at the Council for Higher  Education Accreditation and reviewed various reports that they have  produced.
We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards from October 2002 to February 2004.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Jerry Aiken, Jessica Botsford, Elizabeth  Curda, Luann Moy, Corinna Nicolaou, Jill Peterson, Stan Stenersen, and  Susan Zimmerman made important contributions to this report.