In research that I conducted initially for my doctoral dissertation and then later in a paper with my colleagues Phil Ice and Angela Gibson, I identified several factors as significant variables leading to student disenrollment from an online program.  These variables include no transfer credit received, student’s last grade of F, student’s last grade of W, and low number of courses completed by the student in a 12-month period.

Over the past year and a half, my colleagues and I have continued to examine the student disenrollment patterns at the American Public University System (APUS) and have discussed those patterns with colleagues at a number of other institutions offering online programs.  More and more, I have come to believe that the persistence of students who complete three or more undergraduate courses at APUS and the tendency of students who complete fewer than three courses at APUS to eventually disenroll are much more correlated to adult student behaviors previously identified by researchers using data from traditional institutions.

During the past decade, a major increase in enrollments has occurred  with the number of adults attending online programs versus face-to-face programs.  The reasons are obvious:  working adults are able to attend online programs from any location at any time.  Those with jobs that frequently take them out of town no longer have to juggle schedules to meet the requirement of taking a face-to-face class, but can log in from another city or country; the only requirement is a computer and an internet connection.  Additionally, adult students with a family can come home from work and log in to their classroom after dinner and after the children go to bed.  Those adults whose jobs require them to work non-traditional evening or night shifts can log in during times that suit them and not worry about losing sleep to attend face-to-face courses at a local college or university.

One of the earlier studies regarding persistence rates of adult students was published by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).  In this study, researchers Laura Horn and Mark Premo identified seven risk factors that were associated with the likelihood that a student would not graduate from college.  These risk factors were:  being independent, attending college part-time, working full-time while enrolled, having dependents, being a single parent, delaying entry to college, and not having a traditional high school diploma.  Working adults attempting to complete an associates’ or bachelor’s degree are likely to have at least three of these risk factors and those with children may have five or six.

Other studies of persistence relating to adult students provide explanations and characteristics of transfer students.  Noting that my own research indicated that students who had transferred credits were  more likely to graduate than those who did not transfer credit, I reviewed some of the literature about transfer students and student attendance patterns.  Wright and de los Santos wrote about this phenomenon in “Maricopa’s Swirling Students: Earning One-Third of Arizona State’s Bachelor’s Degrees” in 1990.  Later, director of Indiana University’s National Survey of Student Engagement, Alex McCormick, wrote a research article titled “Swirling and Double-Dipping: New Patterns of Student Attendance and Their Implications for Higher Education,” outlining the various patterns of student attendance and their implications.  In his article, McCormick attributes the likelihood of students to attend multiple institutions to the standardization of credits and the ability to transfer credits from one institution to another rather easily.  McCormick outlines eight different patterns of attendance for swirling students.  These are: 
• Trial enrollment – Students experimenting with another institution before formally transferring
• Special program enrollment – Students completing most of their coursework at their home institution but completing a special program (e.g., semester abroad) elsewhere
• Supplemental enrollment – Students enrolling at another institution for one or more terms to supplement or accelerate their program (examples include summer programs or taking a course at another institution because it’s unavailable at the home institution)
• Rebounding enrollment – Students alternating enrollment at two or more institutions
• Concurrent enrollment – Students taking courses at two institutions simultaneously
• Consolidated enrollment – Students who satisfy their home institution’s residency requirements but a substantial number of their credits come from at least two other institutions
• Serial transfer – Students who make one or more intermediate transfers sequentially in order to complete a degree
• Independent enrollment – Students pursue work unrelated to their degree program and no credits are transferred

McCormick notes that several longitudinal studies exist and while they provide descriptions of attendance patterns, they fail to provide explanations for those patterns.  He cites Clifford Adelman’s 1999 study that examined the longitudinal data of the 1982 high school graduates’ cohort and identified that students who attended multiple institutions accounted for approximately 60 percent of all students who began at four year institutions.  Approximately 37 percent of all students from the 1982 cohort attended two institutions and 22 percent attended three institutions.  Confirming some of the classifications outlined by McCormick was Adelman’s finding that three in five of the 1982 graduates who attended two institutions returned to their first college, as did half of the 1982 graduates who attended three colleges.  It’s important to note that Adelman’s longitudinal study over 16 years examined college attendance data over a much longer period than the NCES data required to be reported by institutions participating in the Federal Student Aid program.

The studies mentioned by McCormick and Adelman are excellent starting points for discussions about why more research is necessary to determine the explanations of student swirling.  Is it possible that adult students might attend even more institutions today because the availability and popularity of online courses and programs has increased substantially over the past decade?  The Sloan Consortium’s most recent publication, Going the Distance:  Online Education in the United States 2011, has identified that nearly one third of all college students completed at least one online course in 2010-2011.  At the recent Council of College and Military Educators (CCME) Conference, the Department of Defense reported that 75 percent of all military tuition assistance payments were for students attending online programs.  While the military may be more mobile than most working professionals, the data otherwise supports the increasing trend of adult students enrolled in online courses/programs.  As noted earlier, the risk factors for college completion are compounded for working adult students and may lead to explanations of some institutions’ student transfers.

More and more, I am convinced that the United States needs a national database that tracks the progress of college students as they attend multiple institutions.  The Predictive Analytics Reporting (PAR) Framework funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and managed by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) Cooperative for Education Technologies has a database with 640,000 student records from students attending online programs at six different institutions.  That’s approximately 10 percent of the students who took online courses last year according to the Sloan survey mentioned earlier.  The National Student Clearinghouse provides data as it is contributed by participating institutions, but institutions are not required to belong to the consortium and only recently has the Clearinghouse been able to accept student data from institutions with non-traditional financial aid enrollment periods.  In addition, that data does not aggregate by institutional profile in a more granular format (adult serving, commuter college, online, etc.). 

During the last reauthorization of the Higher Education Opportunity Act in 2008, Congress inserted a provision prohibiting the Department of Education from creating such a database.  To quote McCormick, “if educators, policymakers, and researchers are to assess institutional impact, they will need better information about [an] institution’s attendance profile, if not detailed information about the source of credits at the student level.”  As Adelman and others have identified, there are multiple types of institutional profiles as well as profiles of students who attend those institutions.  Before a policymaker or pundit makes a disparaging remark about student persistence rates at a particular institution or group of institutions, they need to have data far beyond that related to first-time, full-time students that has been the baseline for institutional reporting to the Integrated Post-secondary Education Data System (IPEDS).  Institutions and researchers should collaborate to provide more insights to explanations for adult student drop out beyond “life happens.”  More research on adult student swirling needs to be conducted, particularly for those students attending online programs or institutions.

Within only a couple months of taking office, President Obama announced his goal to increase the national college graduation rate which is woefully low (40.4 percent, according to statistics from the College Board) compared to those of other nations including Japan (53.7 percent), Russia (55.5 percent), and Canada (55.8 percent).  One of the main initiatives associated with President Obama’s plan to boost college graduation rates included a proposal to provide $12 billion in funding to US community colleges over a ten year period.  Per the President’s plan, however, these funds would be for use in improving programs, courses, and facilities; not, in other words, to assist students in paying for their degrees at these schools.  Obama also told community colleges that he would like to see them play a more active role in creating jobs while simultaneously graduating five million more students than current rates by the year 2020. 

Two years after tasking community colleges with such an ambitious goal, the unemployment rate lingers around nine percent nationwide, down slightly from when President Obama took office but still painfully high for many college graduates.  Whenever the economy tanks, college enrollments tend to rise as people return to school in hopes of earning a degree that will help them stand out in a highly competitive job market.  With state funding dwindling and colleges and universities forced to make hard economic decisions, many students are finding it difficult to even get into a classroom thanks to faculty layoffs, program cuts, and other actions taken by many schools in an attempt to balance their budgets.  Without question, so many cuts are leading to fewer scholarship opportunities across the board. Combining scholarship cuts with tuition and fee increases, the dollar amount of educational loans has grown dramatically even as other forms of consumer debt have remained static or even decreased.  According to an article in Texas’ Star-Telegram, “Total student debt was $550 billion at the end of the second quarter [of 2011]…up 25 percent from $440 billion in the third quarter of 2008…”  The Project on Student Debt reports that some two-thirds of students graduate from college with educational loans and the average amount of these loans is up substantially.

All of these factors are compelling many to question whether the cost of college is worth the value of a degree.  On the one hand, some claim that college degrees are overrated, not nearly as imperative as students are led to believe.  Richard K. Vedder, Ohio University professor of economics and founder of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, notes that “eight of the ten job categories that will add the most employees during the next decade – including home-health aide, customer service representative, and store clerk – can be performed by someone without a college degree.”  Vedder recommends that rather than encouraging high schools across the country to prepare every student for college, they work to prepare every student for the workplace instead.

For me, the more compelling evidence is found on the side of the argument reinforcing the importance of higher education in America.  Aside from the fact that if we devalue college educations in this country, we are sure to continue to outsource our highest paying jobs to other nations, the value for the individual consumer is also consistent.  According to the Lumina Foundation’s September 2010 report titled, “A Stronger Nation through Higher Education,” “It appears that increasing attainment can actually drive economic growth – and therefore job creation.”  The US Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics notes that in 2009, students with only a high school diploma or equivalent could expect to make a median salary of around $33,000 while those with a bachelor’s degree could expect upwards of $51,000.  It is important, however, that colleges and universities examine their fixed cost models and evaluate alternative delivery methods capable of decreasing the costs from the current levels that are increasingly unaffordable.

As the debate continues, it is important to qualify my assertion that college is worth its cost by saying that it is equally as important that students make informed and educated decisions about which college or university they attend.  Comparing institutions can assist potential students in determining which schools offer the best values, most well-rounded programs, most successful advising services, etc.  In the long term, an individual with a college education is more likely to earn more over the course of his or her lifetime than someone with only a high school diploma or equivalent.  The nation as a whole benefits from having a highly educated citizenry.  If we discourage our young people from attending college, we will undo generations of hard work toward demonstrating that education is important while simultaneously falling behind our international competitors. 

Regardless of the speaker or panel topic, if there was an underlying theme, it was “America’s education system is broken.  There are many good ideas.  If we don’t implement them soon, our nation will suffer.”  Whether it was James Shelton, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement, US Department of Education; Michael Crow, President of Arizona State University; Craig Barrett, retired CEO of Intel Corporation; or Joel Klein, EVP at News Corp and former Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education; all of them delivered the message that we need to reform our education system.  Dr. Crow talked about how the taxpayers of Arizona are paying twice for inadequately prepared high school graduates who have to take remedial math and reading courses when they matriculate in Arizona’s colleges.  Dr. Barrett listed the many policy studies beginning with A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform that identified the problems in our education system and yet little progress has been made.  Joel Klein said that the perverse incentives with K-12 leave little reason for striving for excellence in teaching and learning.

Despite the big issues that need to be solved, I think this nation has the ability to solve many of these problems.  I left the conference committed to not just focusing on higher education issues, but to see if there are ways that members of our institution can contribute to K-12 innovations and improvements as well.  We have reached the stage where it’s no longer appropriate to say that the problems are someone else’s.  Reforming education is all of our responsibilities and cooperation is needed if we want to improve the lives of the generations behind us.

The “myths” that AMU or APU are diploma mills or unaccredited are invalid.  In most cases, the myths are more than likely disseminated by individuals who do not care for online colleges and universities.  Faculty and staff members of accredited institutions that operate partially online or totally online have heard the negative perceptions about online education for years and have worked hard to demonstrate the evidence that supports learning in online programs.  A May 2009 study published by the U.S. Department of Education entitled Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning:  A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies stated that students learn better in online programs than in face-to-face programs .  The researchers examined over 1,000 published research papers involving online and face-to-face learners.

The FACTS about AMU’s existence and accreditation are irrefutable.  AMU is one of two universities that form the American Public University System (APUS).  APUS is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association (NCA), one of eight regional accrediting bodies in the United States and the largest regional accrediting body in terms of the number of colleges that it accredits.  You can find our name, accreditation status, and other pertinent information listed on its website at:   http://hlcommission.org/component/option,com_directory/Action,ShowBasic/Itemid,184/instid,2853/lang,en/.     Among the 1,000 plus colleges and universities accredited by NCA are the University of Chicago, the University of Notre Dame, and Northwestern University.  The accreditation process is lengthy and complex and includes many visits by very well educated academics.  A diploma mill would not survive such a review process.  The American Public University System has also been accredited by the Accrediting Commission of the Distance Education and Training Council since 1995.  The link for AMU is at this address:  http://detc.org/school_details.php?id=169.  APUS is licensed in West Virginia and Virginia which are the two states where we have offices with our administrative and academics leadership and staff.  We have over 60,000 students and over 10,000 alumni.  Two-thirds of our students are active duty military personnel.  The Department of Defense requires all colleges and universities that participate in its tuition assistance program to be accredited and licensed by a recognized accrediting body.

Additionally, APUS has over 1200 faculty members whose names and credentials are listed on our website.  These professionals would not stake their reputation by working for a diploma mill or unaccredited institution.  Our faculty and staff present at many conferences each year and proudly list their affiliation.  Most, if not all, of these conferences would not accept presenters from unaccredited institutions. 

Lastly, whenever anyone has a concern about a statement that is made about our accreditation, please do not hesitate to contact our Office of Institutional Advancement at accreditation@apus.edu.  They will be glad to help you set the record straight.

The authors point out that according to the U.S. Department of Education, only 20 percent of community college students graduate within three years and only 40 percent of four year college students graduate within six years.  In fact, only 27 percent of college students attend the traditional residential college that most people envision as the idyllic college environment.  Even more telling of the changes in college student profiles, 45 percent of students attending four year colleges reported working more than 20 hours per week and 60 percent of students attending two year colleges reported working more than 20 hours per week.

Data from the survey indicates that the number one reason students cite for dropping out of college is that they had to work and attend school at the same time and the stress of doing both caused them to leave school eventually.  Balancing work and school was a bigger barrier for them than financing the cost of an education (54 percent versus 31 percent).  Only 10 percent of students who left college cited boredom as the reason.  Over 55 percent of students surveyed stated that they had to work full-time and that they did not see how they could work full-time and go to school at the same time.

Nearly six out of 10 people in the study who left college stated that they had to pay for college themselves without parental support.  In addition, their process for selecting the college of their choice was much less rigorous than most people imagine.   Nearly two-thirds of those students who did not complete college stated that they selected a college because of its convenient location to them while 60 percent chose their college because its schedule worked with theirs and 57 percent selected a college because its tuition and fees were affordable.

Affordability and access have an ongoing theme with some of the survey responses, similar to the two key themes from the final report of the Spellings Commission.  Approximately 80 percent of students who dropped out indicated that more financial aid should be available for part-time students and that more college classes should be offered at nights and on weekends.  Nearly the same percentage stated that the cost of attending college should be cut by 25 percent.  Approximately 57 percent indicated that it would be helpful if there were more classes offered online.  Over 60 percent of all students surveyed (graduates and dropouts) stated that most people do not have the opportunity to go to college.

While the survey results were interesting, there were not many findings that surprised me.  The data from the Measuring Up annual reports indicate that many Americans cannot afford college.  The growth of online programs at both for-profit and non-profit institution demonstrate the need for adult students to attend an institution whose courses are available on their time schedule.  The request for federal student aid for part-time students is long overdue, and if there were one item from this study that I would recommend policy makers to consider, it would be that recommendation.  Data from the U.S. Department of Education confirms that 73 percent of today’s college students do not meet the traditional profile of full-time, residential students.  The financial aid system rewards full-time students and penalizes part-time students, particularly those who work full time.  With our president’s goal of having more Americans attain college degrees, finding ways to make a college education more affordable should be a national imperative.

The Forward to the report, written by Delta Cost Project’s Executive Director, Jane Wellman, notes that “Our country needs to increase capacity and improve performance in higher education.  We can’t allow the funding crisis to justify rollbacks in access or quality.”  The report utilizes the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data provided by all institutions of higher education to the U.S. Department of Education, but the authors admit that “private for-profit institutions, an important and growing sector in American higher education, are excluded from the fiscal analyses because of the poor quality of trend data for these institutions.” 

Between 2002 and 2006, “overall postsecondary enrollments increased by more than 1.6 million students,” representing “the greatest five-year growth since the baby boomers headed to college.”  With such significant increases in college enrollments, the information about college costs contained in the report should be able to illuminate whether or not the incremental enrollments were folded into the system at a fully loaded cost per student or an incremental cost.  The report notes that it did not prepare fiscal analyses of the private, for-profit sector (of which APUS is included) despite the fact that this sector and public community colleges have seen the largest enrollment increases during the period under review.

Non-profit colleges and universities receive funds from multiple sources including: tuition and fees, state and local appropriations, endowments, federal funds, private gifts, and bond revenues.  Depending on the type of institution (public or private), any specific university will receive funds from some but likely not all of the sources listed. 

The report notes that when considering the impact of tuition increases on consumers, it is important to understand how tuition received from students and their families are spent.  “Tuitions go up for two basic reasons: to pay for real increases in overall spending, or to substitute for revenue declines elsewhere in an institution’s budget” according to the report.  The latter reason for a tuition increase is known as “cost shifting.”  Cost shifting can be utilized as a budgeting strategy by public institutions when state and local appropriations dwindle.  The art of cost shifting is only possible in a market where the consumers are not price sensitive since the funds received from increased tuitions are not used to increase the quality of education received by students but are instead used to supplement dwindling funds available for other fund-generating elements of many public institutions, including hospitals and other services.  According to statistics provided by the Delta Cost Project, “about 92 percent of the increase in (public institutions’) student tuitions since 2002 can be attributed to shifts in revenue, while 8 percent went to actual increases in spending.”  In short, in cost shifting situations, the student pays more to attend the school but sees little return on his money since the funds are not used to increase the quality of education provided. 

As the report points out, what makes the current situation in college spending so interesting is that it seems to fly in the face of established business practices particularly in the technology arena, namely that of “providing service at a lower cost without reducing quality.”  Considering the financial crisis facing our nation and, in turn, individual students and their families, the report warns that if colleges and universities are to continue to attract students, they will be forced to reconsider their traditional attitudes toward spending.  The amount spent per student by institutions portrayed in this report is decreasing while increasing tuition funds are being used for items other than those related directly to increased access and the quality of education received.  In any open market, it is unlikely that a consumer would continue to pay increased prices while receiving a lower quality product or a product with no increased benefit or features. 

Higher education has only been able to get away with this unique situation defying normal market conditions because post World War II American college students and their parents have acknowledged the importance of a college education in securing a strong financial livelihood.  As the current financial crisis continues and students are forced to make college choices based increasingly on cost, higher education in general will likely be forced to reconsider non-ROI spending practices and cost shifting in order to continue to attract students or maintain enrollment levels.  The conclusion of “Trends in College Spending” sums up the situation nicely: “The trends documented in this report show that the incremental approach to budget balancing has put our nation on a path of disinvestment in core capacity in much of higher education – a pattern that is only revealed by looking at broad metrics that examine revenues in relation to spending, enrollments, and results.”  Speaking on behalf of an institution whose single source of revenue is tuition, it’s about time that more institutions are required to focus on spending on quality initiatives that improve student outcomes.  The student, or the consumer, should always benefit from tuition increases.

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.

As Congress and the U.S. Education Department are placing increasing public pressure on higher education institutions to publish significantly more information about their performance, accountability initiatives are on the rise. The need for greater accountability in higher education was formally recognized in September 2006, when Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings issued the recommendations of her Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Included in this report is language on the requirement of higher education institutions to use standardized assessments of student learning. Met by much criticism and derided as a “one size fits all” approach by many college leaders, higher education organizations and institutions have responded by forming voluntary accountability systems. Recognizing the importance of informing students and the public about the educational value offered by their institutions, colleges and universities have committed to releasing data about student learning outcomes and other data that have not been previously published. At the annual meeting of the Higher Learning Commission in Chicago this past April, commission representatives described three major accountability initiatives:

• University and Accountability Network (UCAN) – a college information website developed by the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU)
• College Portrait Voluntary System of Accountability – a collaborative effort among the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC), the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), and the higher education community
• Transparency by Design (TbD) – launched by the President’s Forum at Excelsior College, a consortium of schools with a focus on adult learners who study at a distance

Each accountability initiative is designed to address the diversity of students and institutions represented and each have a unique mission. The American Public University System is a charter member of the Transparency by Design accountability initiative, a consortium of adult-serving higher educational institutions whose overall mission is to elevate accountability and transparency in higher education. Some of the participating institutions are exclusively online and others use online delivery in conjunction with other delivery modes. They represent a mix of institutional types including public, private not-for-profit, for-profit, community college, baccalaureate and graduate-only:

• American InterContinental University Online
• American Public University System
• Capella University
• Charter Oak State College
• Colorado Technological University
• Excelsior College
• Fielding Graduate University
• Franklin University
• Kaplan University
• Regis University
• Rio Salado College
• Southwestern College
• Union Institute and University
• Western Governors University

Beginning in 2009, Transparency by Design participating institutions will issue learning outcomes reports in the first quarter of each year. The reports will focus on the reporting of program level data, including student demographics, completion rates, costs, student engagement and satisfaction, knowledge and skills learned, and alumni information. Transparency by Design is partnering with WCET (formerly Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications) to serve as an independent third party aggregator and disseminator of the annual reports. WCET is an organization that promotes and advances the effective use of technology in higher education. Their role in Transparency by Design is to validate and publish the accountability data, making it readily available and understandable for prospective students, and to conduct and publish research using the data. Students and the public will be able to visit a website to evaluate how well programs prepare them for their professional pursuits and aspirations.

Charles Miller, Chairman of the Spellings Commission, said that Transparency by Design’s focus on results of individual programs is a positive step. “It will be a major advance if you can get more and more institutions over time to bring accountability down to programs, because that may be how you would smoke out some of the worst problems in how we utilize money,” he said.

With the recent development of these accountability initiatives, the question I would pose is:

Are higher education institutions adequately responding to the accountability demands of Congress and the US Department of Education?

Although there has been resistance from the higher education community on specific components of the Spellings Commission report, one can clearly see the impact of the report on national conversations in higher education. Attend any higher education conference around the nation and you will witness a focus of conversations on access, affordability, accountability, and assessment. On a panel discussion at the Association for Institutional Research conference this past May in Seattle, Linda Suskie, vice president of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, stated, “We’re operating on borrowed time. If we don’t properly assess student learning and share our results with the public in ways that they understand, then someone else is going to tell us what and how to assess, and we’re not going to like it.” On the same panel discussion, Barbara Wright, an associate director of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges’ Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities, acknowledged the dangers of public reporting and that officials will fixate on out-of-context numeric measures, like a single year’s student-retention rate. “But I would rather believe in the public’s better angels,” she continued. “I assume that what they’re really after is improvement.”

Whether officials are striving for improvement, transparency, accountability, or all of the above, I believe these national conversations are good for our current and future students. Tomorrow’s leaders are smart consumers with one-click access to a world of information at their fingertips. They live in the digital information age where they are constantly wired to the Internet, Web 2.0, and social networking. The world is their marketplace, geographic boundaries are non-existent, and transparency is the expected norm. With distance learning, open enrollment, and financial aid opportunities, students have increasingly more options when it comes to attending college. Students want a good return on their investment, and it is our responsibility as institutions of higher education to be as transparent as possible so they can effectively evaluate their potential returns.

If colleges and universities can communicate to our students the potential value of their education, then students can make better informed decisions on their fit for a program and/or institution. Empowering students with this information will increase the likelihood of their completion and success, which is what all parties are striving to ultimately achieve, regardless of our position on the education spectrum. Whether you are from the U.S. Department of Education, Congress, an accrediting body, a higher education institution, or a student, all parties involved benefit from this national conversation.

Mike Offerman, Vice Chairman of Capella University, has written about the Transparency by Design initiative on his blog, The Other 85 Percent. To see his insights on his topic, click here.