Though the authors state in the Introduction that, “We believe such [online] systems have the potential to improve faculty productivity and lower instructional costs without sacrificing educational quality,” online education continues to face staunch critics.  Fundamentally, the report notes that the onslaught of online education in the higher education landscape has the potential to completely transform our concept of and basic approach to educating the nation’s college students.  The concept of online education is so foreign to many that there is some resistance based solely on it being “different.”  The authors conducted interviews with a variety of institutions utilizing online education in a variety of ways.  Not surprisingly, considering the relatively recent arrival of online education on the higher educational scene, institutions are still working to figure out how best to utilize new technologies to reduce instructional costs, improve student learning outcomes, and maximize faculty effectiveness.

Online education is becoming such a disruptive force (to use Clayton Christensen’s terminology) in education that the authors state, “Online learning is taking place at just about every college and university in the nation.”  In their interviews with administrators and faculty at institutions implementing online education in some way, there were some common themes uncovered discussing the rationale for the introduction of online education.  Many institutions, for example, see online offerings as a revenue generator.  Online education has the ability to reach non-traditional students (adult learners who are not able to attend class in a physical, more traditional setting) as well as students who would otherwise not enroll with the university due to geographic location.  While there are significant startup costs associated with implementing an online environment, many schools anticipate eventually recouping that initial investment through decreased use of facility space, increased enrollments thanks to the online offerings, and more effective use of faculty time.  Interestingly, some universities have seen cost savings as well as increased revenue yet the authors point out, “Very few institutions are using either the savings from online education or the net incremental revenue to reduce the price of education to students.”

Schools are also beginning to utilize online education as a means of improving student retention and persistence.  Practically speaking, the current economic crisis that has led to reductions in faculty size and reduction in course offerings, has effectively barred many students from getting into the classes they want and need to graduate.  By moving courses to an online environment, more can be offered overall and fewer students will be blocked from registering for core courses.  In this way, students will be more likely to continue their educations unabated.  In addition, some schools believe that online education has the potential to dramatically improve our understanding and execution of practices to improve student learning outcomes.  Some institutions have implemented online education as a means of testing this theory.  The authors acknowledge that “the belief that students in online courses may learn the material better than their traditional-format counterparts did not appear to be widely held.  This may be partly due to the scarcity of convincing evidence, produced by rigorous evaluations, about the effectiveness of hybrid or online learning compared with that of traditional modes of teaching.”  (The Department of Education released a meta-analysis in 2009 that found that “on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction.”)  

While there are many reasons stated by university administrators for implementing online platforms, there are many perceived barriers, some of which have been stated in the discussion above regarding the rationales for implementation.  As is the case with all disruptive technologies, a small group of early adopters carries the burden of proving the value to others.  For many faculty members interviewed for the report, online education is seen as the end of their value as instructors.  The authors note that fears over diminished faculty ranks in the face of online education was a common theme in their conversations.  While online learning does lend itself to a certain level of “automation,” the faculty must still remain engaged in order to make the course as effective as possible.  Additionally, for those faculty who are willing to venture into the world of online teaching and learning, the authors recommend that institutions create some type of incentive or compensation program.  The initial work required on the part of the faculty member teaching in an online environment is substantial enough that universities should consider breaking down this particular barrier by offering some type of incentive or additional compensation structure for innovative faculty members willing to pursue the online platform. 

For many faculty members, control or ownership over the course is paramount to all other concerns.  The report notes that some faculty members have questions about the implications for intellectual property standards in the online environment.  Others note that they take great pride and care in crafting their courses and many are unfamiliar with the concepts associated with instructional design – they teach the way they were taught and are comfortable in that setting.  In response to these stated challenges and perceived obstacles, the authors have provided a series of remedies including to “make faculty pioneers heroes” by embracing those willing to venture into the online environment and pave the way for others to follow.  Other strategies include establishing centers within the institution separate from the traditional to experiment with online learning and continuously developing a mechanism for mining data that will assist in providing answers to the questions of student learning outcomes, persistence, and retention in the online setting. 

Though there are some perceived barriers to the adoption of online learning systems in American higher education, there is significant evidence that students are migrating toward the online environment.  Babson Survey Research Group, in conjunction with The Sloan Consortium, Inside Higher Ed, and Pearson, noted in its recent report titled, “Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States, 2011” that in the Fall of 2010, more than 6.1 million students took at least one online class.  That represents a 10.1 percent increase over online enrollments in Fall 2009.  In his book The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out, Clayton Christensen notes that the cost of operating an online university is half that of operating a traditional one, largely because of a lack of facilities needed for students.  (To see more about Christensen’s theories in The Innovative University, see my blog article posted last August.)  This translates into an opportunity for students to receive an education for significantly less cost than they could at an average traditional university.  Considering the ambitious goals of the Obama Administration to bring America back to its preeminent position in terms of college graduates, an alternative to traditional higher education is necessary.  At this point online education seems to be a viable alternative and the number of students registering for online courses at traditional universities and the number enrolling at fully online institutions like APUS is a testament to this – despite any perceived barriers.

The first article, from The Chronicle of Higher Education, discusses the concept of “badges” that are awarded by various websites, training companies, individuals, etc. The concept is that the badge is relatively easy to earn (to keep the learner motivated and engaged) and indicates that they have achieved a certain skill level or learning competency.  At the Khan Academy, students receive a “Great Listener” badge for sitting through 30 minutes of video lectures and can earn an “Awesome Listener” badge after completing a full hour of video lectures.  In addition, visitors and users of that site can earn badges indicating “Master of Algebra” or “Challenge Patches.”  Similarly, MITx is a newly announced venture by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), slotted to be released in an experimental prototype version in the spring of 2012 and designed to recognize people who complete MIT’s online courses and successfully pass the tests and quizzes.  MIT has an arrangement with OpenStudy to offer badges to students who are helpful in course discussions.  The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation has a $2 million grant to test the badge platform in education.  With the Foundation’s support, The Mozilla Foundation (best known for the Firefox browser) is “building an Open Badge Infrastructure to enable the interoperability and collection of badges” which will “support badges from any issuer across the Internet.” 

Both The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Education wrote about the tenured Stanford professor who has left to form a startup, Know Labs.  Sebastian Thrun and a colleague taught an artificial intelligence MOOC (Massively Open Online Course) this summer to more than 160,000 students and he plans to commercialize that type of course through the Udacity portal owned by his startup, Know Labs. Thrun’s venture will not only offer courses developed and taught by him but also by others.  One of the first courses that Udacity will offer is “Building a Search Engine” which will be seven weeks in length and which will be taught by David Evans, Associate Professor of Computer Science at the University of Virginia.  Thrun is betting that the word (grades/recommendation) of a highly regarded professor will win over prospective employers or current employers of students taking courses.

Richard Vedder, an economist at Ohio University, wrote an article for the Chronicle’s Innovations blog entitled “Beware: Alternative Certification is Coming.”  Most of the article talks about Straighterline’s lower priced college course offerings and the announcement last week that Straighterline is offering students the opportunity to take the Educational Testing Service (ETS) iSkills test and the Council on Aid to Education’s (CAE) Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) test (the one made famous by New York University Professor of Sociology and Education, Richard Arum and University of Virginia Assistant Professor of Sociology, Josipa Roksa in their book, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses).  Vedder also discusses the Khan Academy and MIT certification offerings.  My favorite paragraph from his article relates to his discussion of the first week of beginning economics courses when professors explain the point that:  “If the price of something rises a lot, people look for substitutes.  Resources are scarce and they [people] maximize their utility by shifting away from high priced goods or services to the lower priced good or service.”

The comments sections in the online postings of these articles range the gamut from commending the idea to ridiculing it.  I happen to think that these alternatives to traditional higher education are to be expected as part of the continuing onslaught of alternatives for a service that many can either not afford or believe is overpriced.  As Christensen states in his books about innovation (specifically Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns and The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out), it’s not always the disrupter that succeeds, but sometimes the incumbent who adopts the disruptive technology and deploys it successfully.

One of the issues that I see with badges is the issue of identity verification and assuring that the person who earned the badge is actually the person who did the work.  Just like the recent SAT test taking scandal on Long Island, if I have a talent at taking a certification course and there are no checks and balances in the system, I may be able to take the course/test for others using their identity.  That problem can be solved, but some solutions are more expensive than others and the expensive solutions may overweigh the cost of the badge or the alternative certification. 

As soon as employers start accepting the badges, the value equation for higher education will lower, putting additional stress on a system that is already stressed by its high prices.  If employers value the training of a superstar professor over a university, that will be another disruptive force to the sector.  The situation reminds me of the scenarios described by Nicholas Carr in his book, The Big Switch (which I wrote about in my blog in July 2008).  Carr’s premise is that the lower cost of technology switches the power from institutions with lots of capital to the individual entrepreneur who is able to “rent” powerful servers and technology from vast farms owned by Google, Microsoft, etc.  Having accreditation and a fancy campus with many faculty and staff may not overwhelm a solo professor/instructor able to convey valuable knowledge to students and to “certify” them by awarding a badge.

The fact that “badges” and other forms of alternative certifications are surfacing daily is another example of the evidence that traditional higher education is overpriced and under siege.  According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, the primary reason that students don’t attend or complete college is financial.  In fact, 57% of adults responding in the survey said that the higher education system does not provide good value for the investment and 75% said that it is not affordable.  The trend is for U.S. employers to seek workers with at least some post-secondary education.  If our colleges and universities are unable to provide employers with graduates with these credentials, it opens opportunities to corporations, organizations, or even individuals offering the alternative credentialing.  Colleges and universities should look to some of these alternatives as viable means to providing a lower cost education as well as a way to preserve or grow their existing enrollments.

Unlike Clayton Christensen who writes about innovative companies as a Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School (thus making his transition to writing about innovative universities less surprising), DeMillo’s background is in engineering and computer science.  His observations, however, stem from his background as a professor at a traditional “brick and mortar” school.  From his position inside the hallowed halls of academia, he notes that the institutions in the middle, those between the elite institutions (top 75) and institutions that admit everyone, are the ones that are in trouble with a value proposition squeeze coming from above (elite) as well as below (business model to serve anyone or everyone at a lower price point).  DeMillo stresses that modern universities are businesses (contrary to some of the myopic ideologues who insist that non-profit institutions don’t have a business model) and are competitive organizations run by smart people.  Similar to Christensen, DeMillo argues that the class-oriented society and culture of higher education creates a faculty-centered model that is difficult to break out of for institutions undergoing competition for enrolled students.  (For a review of Christensen’s book, Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way to World Learns, see my August 2008 blog article.  To see my review of Christensen’s book, The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out, see my August 2011 blog article.)

DeMillo states that in any market, the winners are those with competitive brands, price, or value.  Brand is difficult to build for all but the elite colleges and universities, price continues to increase for almost all institutions and in most cases is becoming uncompetitive, and value is a concept seldom understood by the faculty at most institutions.  Because most college presidents are promoted from the ranks of academics, they are ill-equipped to understand the importance of strategic planning and understanding competitive threats from business disruptors like creative proprietary institutions.

DeMillo states that his book is “ultimately an essay about value.”  Most of the world does not understand the traditional American business model for higher education that is faculty-centered and resource inefficient, not to mention costly.  If American universities want to “survive” (DeMillo’s choice of words) over the next generation, they must apply the following three lessons of our global economy to their operations:

1. Focus on value and deliver a degree that is priced reasonably and that is of reasonable quality.
2. Focus on costs by controlling them in ways that are unthinkable by faculty-centric institutions to include:
a. Deskilling (greater use of adjuncts)
b. Better use of physical plants
c. Better use of materials
3. Establish an individual institutional reputation versus continuing to chase the elite institutions at the top.

DeMillo takes the time to review and report on activities of proprietary or for-profit institutions that he credits for being student-centered because students provide their main source of income.  DeMillo states that enrollment growth is a good thing at a for-profit in that it increases revenues and profits and allows the institution to reinvest those profits in additional services and programs.  Traditional institutions determine their charges from a fixed cost model designed to measure the cost of hours of instruction in the classroom with little consideration for the appropriateness of the charge or the specific relevance of matching labor delivered to competitive market costs.  Online programs run by proprietary institutions price based on services consumed or delivered and unencumbered by a high fixed cost structure; because of this, they are able to provide a competitively priced product with a value recognized by the students they serve.

Institutions in the middle are subsidized by public funds, sponsored research, endowments, or church support.  Tuition fluctuations at these institutions create revenue gaps that have to be covered by increases in one or more of the relevant subsidies.  Those subsidies are shrinking.  DeMillo states that it is not clear how much disruption institutions in the middle can tolerate, but for many, resources are stretched and stressed beyond the breaking point.  DeMillo argues that all institutions in the middle have to pay attention to price sensitive customers.

DeMillo spends some time talking about non-profit and proprietary institutions that are process centered and provides examples about efficiencies that lower the production cost for those institutions.  Another topic that he spends a little time discussing is “hacking degrees.”  Hacking is a topic that continues to be discussed by many writers including Anya Kamenentz, author of DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education.  It is a controversial topic for those focused on traditional education but more strategic for those focused on the capabilities of technology and the learning that the internet and employers provide many adults.  In my opinion, it is a topic that is not covered enough in this book given its potential for impact on the higher education sector.

Like any good researcher, DeMillo provides recommendations for institutions in the middle to “survive” and thrive in the 21st century.  Broadly speaking, institutions should define their value and become “architects” for new business models.  As it applies to the definition of value, institutions should forget about who is above them, focus on what differentiates them, establish their own brand, not romanticize their weaknesses, and be open.  From an architecture perspective, institutions should balance faculty-centrism and student-centrism, use technology, cut costs in half, focus on their own measures of success, and adopt the New Wisconsin idea which is to be truthful to the community that you serve.  His recommendations are sound and grounded.  Because of the entrenched culture at many of the institutions in the middle, I doubt that few will be able to follow DeMillo’s recommended path to improving their performance and financial stability.  Those that are able to follow the path, should see improvements in reputation, enrollments, and be able to distinguish themselves from their competition.

Christensen and his co-author, Henry J. Eyring, take a different tack in this book.  Approximately 60-75 percent of the book provides a narrative of two institutions of higher education, Harvard University and Ricks College, now BYU-Idaho.  While many observers of higher education may not consider Harvard an innovator, decisions made by its presidents over its several hundred year history have influenced the direction of American higher education.  Whether it’s the four-year baccalaureate degree, the creation of various majors, the design of a baccalaureate degree to include general education courses, professional schools with a requirement that applicants complete a bachelor’s degree before matriculating, faculty tenure, the “publish or perish” culture for faculty, or athletic programs; most of those foundational principles that we take for granted today had an evolutionary turn at Harvard.  Christensen and Eyring make the case that the problem with higher ed today is that most four year colleges and universities aspire to “be like Harvard” but only five percent have a realistic chance of pulling it off.

The disrupter to the sector according to Christensen and Eyring is online education.  Whether it’s a for-profit university (DeVry University is one of those cited in the article) or a non-profit (Western Governors University is cited), the authors maintain that the cost of operating online universities is half of the cost of operating a traditional university for many reasons (no athletic teams, no dormitories, no cafeterias, expensive student services, use of adjunct faculty, etc.).  The lack of a need for physical classrooms provides online universities with the ability to offer classes year round.  Also, the recent focus of accrediting bodies on learning outcomes has caused the online programs to take advantage of technology and measure outcomes more effectively in many cases than traditional programs whose accreditation was achieved decades ago.

The story of Ricks College in Idaho has a Harvard connection through the Eyring family and others.  Ricks’ beginnings as a two year college and evolution to a four-year, teaching university is a fascinating story.  Along the way, Ricks’ direction was heavily influenced by its affiliation with and sponsorship by the Mormon Cchurch.  The authors note the elimination of intercollegiate athletics, upward move to a four-year institution, implementation of internship programs, implementation of blended learning programs by utilizing remote sites operated by the Mormon Church for periodic face-to-face classes, and the pricing of the university’s online programs on the margin in order to compete with the online programs run by for-profit universities.  According to the authors, BYU-Idaho is competitive because its leaders didn’t wait to be overrun by the disruptive online programs.

Christensen and Eyring make a great case for online learning as a disruption and provide a few relevant examples of the remaking of BYU-Idaho into a thriving institution in an era when many colleges and universities are taking steps backward rather than forward.  However, their book does not provide detailed analyses of best practices in online education that are continually refined by online educators on a monthly, weekly, daily, and even hourly basis.  By the time a traditional institution wakes up to the need for online courses and programs, it may find itself far behind the learning curve and even further behind in its ability to implement the cultural changes required to compete in a world influenced by the pace of technology.

Since APUS courses are offered wholly online with no time for face-to-face instruction, we developed a number of math instructional videos using Camtasia tablet software and embedded them in our classrooms to supplement the instructional materials.  Later, we decided to make our math videos available to everyone on our American Public University iTunesU site  and our APUS Youtube channel.  Comments to the individual videos, primarily in the form of thank you’s, demonstrate the usefulness and the need for technology like this.  More recently, we partnered with McDonogh School to establish a website, www.campusmath.com, to offer primarily math videos to the public for an elementary school through high school curriculum.  While I can’t speak on behalf of McDonogh School, I think that both of our institutions are aligned with the belief that math skills need to be improved and providing access to these videos to teachers, students, and parents may contribute to improved skills without providing the teachers and professors inside of a physical or electronic classroom.

The article about the Khan Academy in Wired mentions a teacher at Santa Rita Elementary in California who uses the videos from the Khan Academy to replace some of her lectures and then spends more time in class working on problem sets.  Teachers using the Khan Academy videos and problem sets have access to a dashboard that lets them see exactly where the student is stuck on a particular concept or problem.  Increasing the amount of time spent in class solving problem sets provides the teacher with more one-on-one time with the students who need assistance.  Contributing Editor Clive Thompson mentions the 1984 Benjamin Bloom metastudy that measured the effectiveness of one-on-one tutoring versus general classroom instruction (two standard deviations more effective for one-on-one instruction).  Obviously, schools cannot afford to teach everyone one-on-one but technology is capable of assisting teachers and students to improve learning outcomes.  What prompted Khan to record his videos was the discovery that viewing videos over and over again in private is less embarrassing for the student than admitting in a one-on-one session that they still don’t understand the material.  Judging from the comments posted by students on our Youtube videos, Khan’s discovery is on track.

Based on the increasing frequency of its use in the classroom, technology continues to advance at a pace faster than the implementation capabilities of many of America’s K-12 schools, colleges, and universities.  At the same time, there are a number of educational innovators who are willing to experiment.  As Clayton Christensen points out in Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns, technology will ultimately provide educators with the ability to teach students with multiple learning modalities the intended lessons without impeding the highly talented individuals from learning more.  It is my hope that few institutions and regulators impede the innovation process.  (To read my review of Christensen’s Disrupting Class, see my August 2008 blog article.)

In this report, Christensen and his co-authors (hereafter abbreviated as Christensen) discuss the potential for online education to be a disruptive influence on higher education with a total cost of education per student 40 percent less than the traditional universities (when you combine the state and federal subsidies with the cost of tuition). 

Probably the most relevant parts of Christensen’s paper are the recommendations at the back for policymakers and traditional universities.   Christensen says that state and federal officials must “honestly ask and answer” two questions.  The first question is “is the traditional universities’ business model sustainable?”  Christensen believes that there are few traditional universities that can answer yes to this question, particularly given the evidence that online education represents a scalable disruptive technology.  The second question is “is the primary stewardship to facilitate the best possible postsecondary education and training for the people in their state or whether they are appointed to be caretakers of the specific institutions that have historically provided higher education.”  If the answer is the former, then officials must include the disrupters in their partnership to ensure that as many as possible receive higher education.  If the answer is the latter, then low cost universities must be framed as “competitors and enemies.”

Christensen recommends that policymakers must remove the barriers to allowing low cost disruptors to gain share and cites Indiana’s partnership with Western Governors University that comes at no cost to the state because Western Governors is self-funded on tuition alone.  He and his co-authors also recommend that policymakers should encourage the move toward competency-based and next-generation learning models and not focus on traditional inputs such as seat time that lock in the traditional measure of a credit hour.  Christensen also states that we need to move beyond measuring degree attainment as a standard of achievement.  He states that focusing policy on degree attainment versus learning will have the impact of deflating the value of a degree and force people to focus more time and money on achieving advanced degrees which is not necessarily in the country’s best interest.

Christensen states that accreditation is a barrier but also states that it is not productive to fight accrediting bodies.  Instead, he recommends finding pathways around accreditation barriers.  As president of an institution that has worked hard to earn our accreditation, I am not sure that I agree with all of his recommendations with regards to accreditation but also understand why disrupters who have not achieved accreditation view it as a barrier.  I believe that accrediting bodies are an easy target when policymakers and disrupters choose not to understand the bigger picture, particularly when the accrediting bodies are not always transparent about their processes and policies.

The federal financial aid system is complex and many researchers avoid writing about it in great detail, choosing to focus on the macro issues instead.  Christensen and his co-authors not only state that the “all-or-nothing access to federal funds for institutions does not compel students to make rational quality-cost trade-offs” but they recommend an alternative system that would provide access to funding based on quality and student satisfaction measures relative to cost.  They call their new system the Quality-Value (QV) Index and propose measuring four items:  job placement, increase in graduates’ earnings relative to the institution’s tuition cost, whether alumni would choose to repeat the experience, and whether students are able to repay their loans.  Colleges would have access to these new funds based on a sliding scale relative to the QV Index.  A ranking in the top 25 percent would allow colleges to draw 100 percent of their revenue from Title IV programs, ranking between 50 and 75 would allow them to draw 90 percent from Title IV, a ranking between 25-50 would allow them to draw 75 percent, and a ranking between 0-25 would allow them to draw 50 percent from Title IV.  I find this proposed system much more creative than the proposed gainful employment regulations and much more appropriate to implement across the board in higher education regardless of the sector.  The only metric that I would alter would be the cohort default rate as currently measured since it measures repayment over three years versus looking at the higher percentage of loans that are eventually repaid and looks at overall defaults with no weighting on the dollars involved.

As mentioned earlier, Christensen provides recommendations for traditional university leaders as well as online university leaders.  First, Christensen recommends that the correct business model must be applied for the task.  He states that online universities are organized to optimize the flow of students rather than the faculty’s ability to do their research.  The authors also recommend that traditional universities develop a strategy of focus and to choose in what area they will be excellent, thus reducing complexity that allows a reduction in costs.

Lastly, Christensen and his co-authors recommend that administrators at traditional universities frame online learning as a long-term innovation that will allow them to use it to disrupt the traditional classroom experience.  Peer-to-peer teaching employed in many asynchronous online classes allows for students to learn more deeply because they have to adapt the material to fit their individual experiences and cognitive abilities.

The authors state that their intention was not to study higher education as a whole but to examine the industry’s challenges as “problems of managing innovation effectively.”  I think that their lens is a worthy examination that policymakers should consider when looking at the funding challenges that are occurring in many states.  Higher education is complex, but as the authors point out, complexity increases costs and a focus on teaching and outcomes can point the way to a reduction in costs allowing for a more affordable tuition for students.

While our topics were organized under the headings of Distance Education and Technology in Education, they were not limited to higher education and thus, some of the presenters had topics that related to K-12, language training, and teacher training.  What amazed me about this year’s conference is that most of the presenters in our segments were from traditional educational institutions.  At APUS we embrace technology as it is the platform that serves as the foundation for our campus.  Because of that, we usually present at conferences with distance education or technology as the theme.  With themes of lectures at this conference ranging from training traditional college professors to build and teach in an online class, teaching fractions to fifth graders using a smartphone app, and using Twitter as a means of engaging students outside the traditional classroom, the other presenters represented a segment of educators that I have generally not seen at the more technical conferences.

Education is criticized for its slow rate of change.  While some of us have been utilizing technology to deliver instruction online for nearly 20 years, perhaps 2011 is the year we will look back and see a significant increase in the adoption of technology to enhance traditional K-12 and Higher Education instruction and learning.  In Disrupting Class, Clayton Christensen and his co-authors predict that 25 percent of high school classes will be online by 2014 and half by 2019.  Until this past week, I did not think that their prediction had a chance of being correct.  Today, I am much more optimistic.

Online education has gained tremendous momentum in the last several years.  A November 2008 report titled, “Staying the Course: Online Education in the United States, 2008” published by the Sloan Consortium notes that during the fall 2007 semester, some 3.9 million students were taking at least one course online, representing a twelve percent increase over the previous year.  During the same semester, twenty percent of all college students were taking at least one course online.  An Eduventures report from November 2006 predicted this growth; that report found that half of the 2,000 potential students surveyed indicated that they would be interested in completing a degree online.

Though the recently released Department of Education report focuses on online formats for K-12 education, the findings are relevant for online education in general.  The 2006 Eduventures report notes that online education was most popular among adult learners.  The Department of Education report, however, notes that “the number of K-12 public school students enrolling in a technology-based distance education course grew by 65 percent in the two years from 2002-03 to 2004-05.”  In total, the report states that more than a million K-12 students took online courses during the 2007-2008 school year.  Such statistics are promising for online colleges and universities like APUS.  If K-12 students excel in online education in their early education, it seems likely that they may continue with the online format for undergraduate, graduate, and even doctoral degrees.  In Disrupting Class, authors Clayton Christensen, Michael Horn, and Curtis Johnson predict that 25 percent of K-12 classes will be online by 2014 and 50 percent by 2019.  (For a review of Disrupting Class, see my August 2008 blog article.)

In considering the reasons why online courses are growing in popularity, the Department of Education report notes that the ability for students to use their time in a flexible manner boosted online education’s popularity.  According to the study, “learners in the online condition spent more time on tasks than students in the face-to-face condition” finding “a greater benefit for online learning.”  There are obvious cost-saving benefits to online formats and some that are not as obvious including the ability to attend class from one’s home and saving money on the gas a traditional student needs to commute to classes at a brick and mortar institution. 

Additionally, online education expands access to many who may otherwise lack educational opportunities.  Online education could provide significant benefits to those living in rural areas, for example.  The diverse student population found in online classrooms promotes a meaningful exchange of ideas and points of view that is often absent in more traditional classrooms which, especially in traditional K-12 schools are comprised of students from a particular geographic location.  Christensen and his co-authors argue that advances in technology will allow K-12 educators to meet the needs of their students more than ever before.  In the event of smaller school districts with limitations of special teachers, foreign languages like Arabic and Mandarin Chinese could be offered online.  Already, there are providers who offer online advanced placement courses for school districts unable to find qualified teachers.

The implications of the report’s findings for the online education industry are significant.  A recent article in Inside Higher Ed quotes Secretary of Education Arne Duncan as saying of the meta-analysis and its findings, “’This new report reinforces that effective teachers need to incorporate digital content into everyday classes and consider open-source learning management systems, which have proven cost effective in school districts and colleges nationwide.’” 

Today’s students are embracing technology in almost everything they do.  Cell phones, MP3 players, laptop computers, and portable gaming devices are the norm for anyone who can afford them and the cost of technology continues to decrease every day.  The online education market is a part of the technology revolution.  Institutions that embrace online degree programs are expanding access to education for many of America’s students.  Higher education is notorious for its perceived conservation of traditional pedagogies and unwillingness to utilize new technologies to transform the ways that students learn.  With the advent of online education, however, the world of higher education is breaking out of that mold and students are benefitting in the process. 

In addition to affording students some flexibility in their schedules, opportunities for learning are dramatically increased in the online format.  Because students are not tied to classrooms and able to complete work on a more flexible schedule, they are also able to dedicate time to even more non-traditional educational opportunities including volunteer work, memberships in clubs and organizations, and other extracurricular activities that certainly provide invaluable experience.  Working individuals often find that earning a degree online allows them the ability to continue with their careers while working toward attaining their degrees.  In general, I believe that such opportunities help encourage the development of a more well-rounded student and individual.

The meta-analysis released Friday by the Department of Education is not the first study that recognized the advance of online education for students’ learning outcomes.  Coming from the arm of the federal government, its recognized stature makes this report more significant.  As the nation struggles to develop citizens who can effectively compete in our globalizing world, online education is becoming an appealing alternative to traditional brick and mortar classrooms.  With the current economic crisis unfolding as it is, many more individuals will find the economic benefits of online education (ie: lower tuitions, no commuting costs, etc.) worthwhile, allowing online program providers the opportunity to enhance the technologies offered in their classrooms.

A 2006 estimate by the U.S. Census Bureau states that there are 6.8 million teachers in the United States, approximately one-third of them teaching at the elementary, middle and high school levels (the other two-thirds teach at preschool, kindergarten or college levels).  According to the Census Bureau report, teachers in Connecticut enjoyed the largest salaries in the nation, an average of $57,300, while teachers in South Dakota earned only $33,200 per year, the lowest in the nation.  The national average teacher salary in 2006 was $46,800.  Considering the importance of the job the nation’s teachers perform, such striking salary discrepancies are disappointing.  The recent budget crises in most states don’t offer much hope that teacher salaries will improve in the near future.

Across the nation, teachers and even students are uniting to bring attention to the plight of America’s public schools in the face of drastic budget cuts.  A Washington Times article from last month noted that Broward County, Florida is facing a $160 million deficit in its education budget, forcing that county’s school board to have some tough discussions which may lead to the cessation of several sports and other after-school programs.  The same article describes how students in Richmond Heights, Ohio may be facing the possibility of no school sponsored sports at all in the next school year.  In that school district, school sponsored band programs have already been eliminated.  The situation in some public schools is so dire, according to the article, that one principal in Detroit “drew national attention after she called on parents to donate light bulbs and toilet paper to get them through the school year.”

A National Public Radio (NPR) report from April 15 notes that Los Angeles public schools are facing one of the biggest deficits in the nation (some $600 million) and are anticipating slashing thousands of jobs in the coming year.  The school district, according to the article, is expecting to receive $360 million from President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as “the stimulus package”) but that falls tremendously short of the total needed just in Los Angeles public schools, not to mention the hundreds, possibly thousands, of millions that would be required to cover the deficits facing all the nation’s public school systems.

Even with the best intentions of law makers, including California’s Governor Schwarzenegger who claimed that 2008 would be the “Year of Education” in California, there is little doubt that teachers are forced to work harder with fewer resources.  While America’s public schools are grossly underfunded, public policy researchers are calling for better preparation of our K-12 students for college in order that President Obama’s goal of “ensuring that America will regain lost ground and have the highest proportion of students graduating from college in the world by 2020.”  Additionally, President Obama has expressed his intent that all Americans enroll in at least one year of higher education or job training.  Looking at the trends in our higher population growth states, that level of preparation will be a tough challenge with the increasing percentage of students who do not speak English as a native language and the lack of funding for our teachers in order to work with students with language, culture, and other issues.  The Pew Research Center estimates that seven-in-ten Hispanic students enrolled in US public schools, for example, speak a language other than English at home.  The 2008 Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) “Challenge to Lead” report for Texas noted that that Texas could expect a 24 percent increase in K-12 student enrollment between 2006 and 2016 while the national average for the same time frame is only 14 percent.  The growth in student enrollment in Texas will be predominantly from Hispanic populations and the Texas public school system will be required to find ways to integrate these students who may require additional attention to develop their English language skills.

Similar projections are estimated for California, Florida, and North Carolina, as well.  A 2008 report published by the Pew Research Center notes that in 2006, Hispanic students accounted for nearly half of all public school students in California, up from 36 percent in 1990.   According to the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), California’s Hispanic population will continue to grow so that by the 2015 white non-Hispanic students will account for only 28.9 percent of the California’s public school graduates while Hispanic students will represent nearly half of California’s graduates.  Between 2006 and 2016, according to SREB, Florida’s population is expected to increase by 20 percent, the highest growth rate in the region.  The number of Hispanic students in Florida public schools is expected to increase from 19 percent to 36 percent between 2004 and 2018.  In North Carolina, for the same time period, the number of Hispanic students in public schools is expected to increase from 3 percent to 33 percent.

Our nation’s colleges and universities need to update our teacher education curriculums to prepare teachers, principals, and counselors for some of the ongoing and future challenges.  Technology can help, according to Clayton Christensen in his book, Disrupting Class, by leveraging the skills of skilled teachers with the multiple learning differences experienced in today’s classroom (see my August 2008 blog article for more information on this book and Christensen’s analysis of how technology can be used to develop student-centric teaching styles).  We have to identify and instruct future teachers how to use the technologies.  States and cities have to assure that funding for training and equipment purchases is available as well.

Given the current state of affairs vis-à-vis the nation’s economic situation, teachers today are without question forced to perform one of the most important public services with very few resources.  This week and indeed all year, teachers, I commend you for your efforts and applaud your dexterity in managing bureaucratic stresses while continuing your focus on educating our nation’s young minds for the future.  Thank you for all you do!

Some of the prescient points that the authors make in the book are:  increasing spending on the wrong items (like more computers) won’t necessarily help improve K-12, blaming the problems solely on the teachers’ unions won’t improve K-12, and unless students and teachers are motivated, problems won’t necessarily get solved.

I have already recommended this book to several people I know who serve on Boards of Education at the state and county levels.   My reason for recommending the book is that it presents a well-organized and researched approach to resolving some of today’s biggest educational dilemmas.  The authors provide cogent reasoning about students learning in different ways, the positive force behind disruption, and how K-12 education in America is constantly changing.  They provide examples of how technology can be harnessed to develop student-centric teaching, tailoring the education program to a specific student’s learning style.  Christensen’s expertise is in innovation, and he and his co-authors discuss the difficulties in getting to stage two learning by implementing the disrupting technologies outside of K-12 education before bringing them inside the K-12 classroom. 

A fascinating read for me was the research supporting the fact that changes in education need to occur before individuals reach the age of three, primarily citing the work done by Drs. Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley.  The authors add that education research in schools of education in higher education have not consistently supported consistent results with consistent improvement.  Lastly, they provide a toolkit for administrators to implement a successful improvement plan.

For those of you looking for a thoughtful read on K-12 education improvements, this is one of the best that I’ve read.  With improvements in technology leading to disruption in how children are educated, Christensen and his team predict that by 2019, half of high school classes will be delivered online and 25% will be online by 2014.  Reading the book will provide an understanding of the factors influencing his prediction, but it will also provide educators with some thought-provoking ideas that are not out of the realm of practical possibilities for implementation.