Higher Education Act
Reauthorization Recommendations
of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers
on Distance Learning
January, 1998

Background

In the 1980's, negative stories filled the media about postsecondary correspondence schools. Concerns centered on two areas: severe educational shortcomings and fraud, abuse and waste of federal student aid funds. During this same period of time, however, a growing number of colleges and universities were offering another kind of "distance education"--video and computer-based coursework beamed to their own students as well as students at other institutions.

As reauthorization of the higher education act proceeded in 1992, Congress wanted to clamp down hard on correspondence schools. On the one hand, Congress did not want to close the door to the new generation of distance education, but neither did it want to open the door too widely since video-based distance education is subject to many of the same concerns as correspondence courses. In response, Congress took the following position in the 1992 higher education reauthorization [Section 484(g)(1)(m)(1)(2)]:

"A student enrolled in a course of instruction at an institution...that is offered in whole or in part through telecommunications and leads to a recognized associate, bachelor or graduate degree conferred by such institution shall not be considered to be enrolled in correspondence courses unless the total amount of telecommunications and correspondence courses at such institution equals or exceed 50 percent of such courses."

The law also provides (Section 481(a)(2)(E)(3) (A+B): An institution cannot be considered an "institution of higher education" for the purpose of the Act if the institution enrolls more than 50% of its students in correspondence courses.

In the intervening years there has been a technology revolution on campus; more and more colleges believe they will be able to reach new "markets" by offering distance education--sometimes, complete degree programs through distance education. These schools, spurred on by the educational technology industry, are seeking an end to the "50% rule" on distance learning. Arguing that distance learning is just as effective as traditional teaching, they maintain that percentage restrictions are not appropriate.

*******************

Distance education, conducted properly, can be a real asset for some students and a creditable component of an educational program. But it would be bad public policy to simply lift the 50 requirement because a number of critical educational concerns are inherent in granting degrees and certificates through distance education.

• As college faculty, we know that a coherent academic curriculum, good teaching, academic freedom, strong interaction between faculty and students, and access to and training in the use of the best learning materials, virtually define quality education.

• It has always been recognized by the government, by the academy and by educational accrediting agencies, that educational quality depends on the curriculum being developed and approved by qualified faculty through defined academic processes in each field of study. Solid counseling and mentorship are required. But institutional administrators are ever-anxious to attract enrollments, and the competition has become very intense in the world of distance education. Competition and controls are likely to lessen sharply if the 50% rule is simply lifted. If distance learning courses are developed outside faculty channels, and are then beamed to students at other institutions where that faculty has no control at all over the content, the public will lose the most important protection it has against course content being "dumbed down" or tests being made easier in the competition for students.

• Someone needs to make sure that students will have access to and training in utilizing the books, laboratories and other materials they need for a successful education. This is exceedingly difficult to maintain in a degree program taught wholly or largely at a distance. Books and laboratories are not anachronisms; the notion that the library is "on line" today is simply false. Faculty often report that student research based entirely on the Internet can be superficial, or just plain wrong, without the mediating influence of campus information sources whose materials have to meet faculty and librarian standards.

• Effective distance learning simply won't happen unless students and faculty receive proper training in the use of technology resources. Conducting distance learning wholesale without training is certain to result in shoddy education.

• At the simplest level: Will distance education students be required to take examinations in a monitored or proctored environment? At present there is no system that can validate the identity of an individual communicating on-line.

• The door must not be left open to disreputable and fly-by-night institutions beaming "degrees" to students entirely on-line. Prevention of fraud and abuse by diploma mills has proved difficult enough over the years; a college closed by authorities in Louisiana reappears in Hawaii and California. Now, information providers can be literally anywhere in the world--which has many advantages, but also can lead to bad practice. Lifting all restrictions, and plunging students into burdensome and useless debt, cannot be the proper response to distance education.

Some advocates say that the results are already in on distance education; it "just as good as" traditional education--not just for some courses, not just under certain circumstances, but under all circumstances and for whole degree programs. But there's a lot we don't know about distance education that we ought to make sure we learn as we experiment with new technologies. Recent history has seen more than its share of education fads.

As distance education proceeds, we need good objective research and evaluation to discover whether these programs work for some kinds of coursework more than others or for some kinds of students more than others and what particular practices produce better results. An organization such as the National Academy of Sciences is one organization that may be able to perform this evaluative function.

*******************

In response to the growth of distance learning, we must ensure that common sense procedures are put into place to ensure:

• that educational quality is maintained,
• that distance learning programs are evaluated, and
• that basic safeguards against fraud and abuse are instituted.

If the federal government wishes to experiment with lifting the 50% requirement, it should be done for a limited number of institutions designated by the US Secretary of Education--the maximum number increasing gradually during the life of the Act, assuming results are good. As noted above, institutions chosen for the experiment would agree to adhere to a number of conditions for protecting educational quality, to allow results to be assessed and to put into place strong management safeguards against fraud and abuse.

• Each recognized accrediting agency would be required to work with a recognized accreditation agency that developed standards for distance education that:
  • Assure faculty control over the curriculum through normal academic processes;

  • Assure meaningful interactivity between students and faculty, both in the classroom and through counseling and mentorship;

  • Assure access to adequate books, laboratories and other learning materials; and

  • Assure access to and adequate training in the use of computer hardware and software for faculty and students.

• Recognized accrediting agencies would be required to assess programs, perhaps with the help of outside organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences. Further research into distance education technologies should be conducted.

• Participating institutions would be required to put into place objective evaluation mechanisms to assess learning outcomes in the distance program. These would review, among other things, the effect of distance learning instruction on different audiences, dropout rates, whether there is are subject matter differences, the effect of different forms of professor-student and student-student interaction, and the manner of testing students. These would be included in the biannual accreditation agency review.

• Secretarial approval of institutions to participate in the waiver program would be required to include careful analysis--and then monitoring--of the institutions' ownership, management structures and procedures to assure that the right students are getting the right amount of aid.