In a move eerily reminiscent of former Sen. James Webb’s GI Bill legislation, the House passed legislation on February 4, 2022, to expand Pell grant eligibility for any short-term program with “at least 150 clock hours of instruction over a period of at least 8 weeks” if it is not primarily delivered online.
Senator Webb, the architect of the Post 9-11 GI Bill, did not believe in equal standing for online education compared to residential education and excluded it for eligibility for the housing allowance portion of Post 9-11 GI Bill benefits when that bill was originally introduced on his first day in the Senate in January 2007. Fortunately for veterans, the bill was amended a year or two later to provide a housing allowance based on 50 percent of the national average.
In Friday’s Inside Higher Ed, Suzanne Smalley reported that community college leaders are puzzled why the current House bill excludes online education when they have developed many high-quality short-term online programs since the beginning of the pandemic.
Ms. Smalley interviewed Russell Poulin, executive director of the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies who was disturbed about the bill’s exclusion of online programs. Mr. Poulin said that if quality was a concern for program eligibility, programs with high quality outcomes should be included, regardless of modality.
A House committee staffer said that the Pell grant expansion was limited to brick-and-mortar or hybrid options because they are associated with better outcomes.
Tom Brock, director of the Community College Research Center at Teachers College of Columbia University, supports the expansion of the program. He said that online programs were likely excluded because they have historically underperformed, but during the pandemic, community colleges have gained experience in that modality.
I find it ironic, but am not surprised, that this level of thinking continues to occur among policymakers. Just as everyone from an elite institution elected to Congress believes that graduation rates below 90 percent indicate poor institutional performance, those who believe that all online programs are bad based on a few poor performers or because of inadequate understanding and analysis of the underlying data are just as wrong in their thinking.
The Online Learning Consortium was established in 1992. Institutions dedicated to quality online offerings, regardless of tax paying status, have actively contributed to the advancement of online courses and programs by their participation in this organization dedicated to online education.
During the 2010 – 2014 period, Pell Runners negatively influenced the completion rate of many online courses, certificates and degree programs. Institutions influenced the most were community colleges and for-profit institutions that generally offered non-selective, or open enrollment, for their online classes.
Individuals with intentions to game the financial aid system (the Pell Runners) would enroll at a college just long enough to receive a Pell Grant refund (the low-cost courses at community colleges and some for-profit schools were more than covered by a full Pell Grant, so the student would ask for a refund for the difference). As soon as the refund check was received, they would no longer complete assignments or even login online.
I believe that the U.S. Department of Education has never attempted to adjust the completion records of schools for the hundreds of thousands of Pell Runners who scammed the schools and the government. Every school could easily identify and submit this data to the Department of Education since it’s likely that the Pell Grant refund check left the school obligated to refund some of the tuition money to the Department based on the students’ last data of attendance.
We can fix this by allowing all the schools scammed by Pell Runners to submit a list of students who took advantage of the system and whose inclusion continues to negatively influence completion rates for certain certificates and degrees. The completion rates of programs including only true students would dramatically improve. I’m willing to bet that politicians will never allow this to happen even though it means College Scorecard data is misstated for non-selective institutions that enroll large online populations of students.
Another simple rule change that could mitigate this problem is to not require colleges to return the excess Pell grant money to the student before the course is “substantially completed.” Unfortunately, that’s not likely going to happen either since Pell grants are designed to fund tuition and living expenses.
There are three groups impacted by this myopia regarding some Pell Grant recipients: colleges offering online programs, legitimate students, and taxpayers. If a more accountable system could be developed, less money would be distributed fraudulently which would mean more money could be available for future Pell Grants to students. Institutions would be able to report legitimate results and not data on dozens, hundreds, or thousands of “students” who scammed them and the government in order to receive “free money.” Taxpayers would see fewer incomplete certificates and degree programs and a higher distribution of funds to legitimate Pell-eligible students. Oh, I forgot to mention, the subsidized loan program has similar issues with one-time borrowers who drop out as soon as the proceeds are received and never complete their courses or programs.
