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.

President Obama’s speech led off with a discussion of the global economy and the fact that “the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge.”  One of the first persons to stimulate a national discussion on this topic was author Thomas Friedman with the publication of his book, The World is Flat, in 2005.  Friedman cogently makes the point that technology has opened up the ability for companies to effectively employ engineers from India and China while conducting their business from the U.S.  Friedman also discusses the higher rates of education in countries with former third world status where it is recognized that the ticket to financial success is a good education.

After the publication of Friedman’s book, the National Conference of State Legislatures’ Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education issued a publication entitled Transforming Higher Education:  National Imperative – State Responsibility (2006).  President Obama stated that “we have one of the highest dropout rates of any industrialized nation and half the students who begin college never finish.”  Reading through the NCSL report, you will find several chilling statistics, one of which is that “for every 100 ninth graders who enter high school, only 18 finish college within six years.”  President Obama stated that “three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school diploma, and yet just over half of our citizens have that level of education.”  It doesn’t take a degree in mathematics to figure out that with an 18 percent college graduation rate (calculated from the base of ninth graders) our percentage of college-educated citizens going forward is on a much more rapid descent rate when compared to the ascent in other countries.

Part of the problem in lower college participation and graduation rates is that the fastest growing populations in America (Latinos, African Americans, and immigrants) are the lowest participating populations in higher education.  There are many research studies that document some of the reasons why our minority populations are participating in college at a lower rate.  One of them is affordability.  The NCSL report expresses a concern that America is in danger of creating a permanent underclass in that “the poorest individuals have only an 8 percent chance of obtaining a college degree compared to a 70 percent chance for the wealthiest individuals.”  Last night, President Obama said, “We’ve made college affordable for nearly 7 million more students, 7 million.”  That comment is misleading.  The stimulus package increases the amount of the Pell Grant awarded to recipients of federal financial aid from $4,731 to $5,350.  That is a notable increase and it would currently benefit the 5.4 million students who received Pell Grants last year and the estimated 6.7 million students who are projected to be using Pell Grants.  But increasing the Pell Grant does not make college affordable for nearly 7 million more students.  Our federal financial aid system has been designed to focus on loans, not grants.  The design of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 was to distinguish between mandatory entitlement programs and discretionary entitlement programs.  Student loans are considered mandatory entitlements and all other programs, including Pell Grants, are considered discretionary.  Thus, as the numbers of students eligible for federally subsidized loans have increased and the tuitions that colleges charge have increased, the government has been required to fund those increasing loan amounts (over $60 billion in 2008).  Pell Grants remained flat at $4,050 per year for the first five years of the Bush administration as tuitions made their meteoric rise and only recently, has Congress increased that amount.  At the same time, in some years, Pell Grant funding had to be legislated in arrears after it was determined that the number of students eligible for Pell Grants exceeded the original Department of Education projections.

There are many who say that the current financial aid system is broken.  The Spellings Commission suggested simplifying it and others have suggested that it does not achieve the educational goals that we need to attain as a country.  The formula for financial aid calculates the estimated family contribution for each student based on income and assets and the costs of attending the institution.  The higher the tuition and fees, the higher the loan while the Pell Grant amount stays relatively fixed.  In an article in yesterday’s Chronicle of Higher Education entitled “Don’t Fix the Student-Aid System.  Kill It.”, Robert Ronstadt, a former vice president at Boston University and author of Surviving the Tuition Travesty: How to Take the Financial Sting Out of Paying for College, says that colleges need to focus on lower tuition strategies and reduce the amount students must borrow, which has inched its way up to $21,000 per graduating undergraduate in 2007.  Ronstadt cites the disparity between tuition increases and family income increases that were reported in Measuring Up 2008 whereby the lowest income quintile of Americans perceives that they cannot afford college regardless of the tuition charged. 

President Obama and his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, would be well-advised to establish a Commission to examine a financial aid system that incentivizes its participants (institutions) to charge more since the financial aid system will fund a loan that a student will eventually have to repay.  The President stated that “if you are willing to volunteer in your neighborhood or give back to your community or serve your country, we will make sure that you can afford a higher education.”  Maybe he has a plan to revamp financial aid and we have not seen it yet.  Ronstadt believes that lower tuitions and consequently lower loan balances can only benefit the student and the economy since students will have more disposable income with lower loan balances to pay after graduating.  The Spellings Commission cited affordability and access as two of its four key issues that higher education needs to address.  I believe that increased affordability is the primary  way that we can increase the number of college graduates and that it will expand access.  Serving adult learners through a financial aid system that recognizes that not everyone attends college immediately after graduating from high school will expand access and affordability.  Ronstadt says that colleges need to become more competitive and revise their operating model.  Some of the for-profit institutions and non-profit institutions that are tuition dependent already operate with efficient models and generally, affordable tuition rates.  The Presidents cited in the Iron Triangle Report (see my recent blog article about this report) state that they can increase access and affordability only if someone gives them more money.  My guess is that they haven’t studied economic models in a free-market economy or chose not to go through the heavy lifting required to solve the affordability problem.  Either way, it is disappointing that the attitude is more entitlement-oriented than geared toward designing a product that will benefit America’s students.

Lastly, President Obama ended his thoughts on a motivational note.  “So, tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be a community college or a four-year school, vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma.  And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It’s not just quitting on yourself; it’s quitting on your country. And this country needs and values the talents of every American.  That’s why — that’s why we will support — we will provide the support necessary for all young Americans to complete college and meet a new goal: by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. That is a goal we can meet.”  This is motivational and ambitious.  I hope that President Obama’s goal is attained as was President Kennedy’s goal to place a man on the moon by the end of the decade (1960’s).  I think that there will be a lot of heavy lifting required by higher education policy makers at the state and federal level, state legislators, governors and Congress, higher education leaders and others in order to accomplish this goal.  If our dialogue can be as direct and as blunt as the budget that the Obama administration promises to deliver, progress may occur.