Distance Education: More Data Could Improve Education's Ability
to Track Technology at Minority Serving Institutions (12-SEP-03,
GAO-03-900).
Distance education--offering courses by Internet, video, or other
forms outside the classroom--is a fast growing part of
postsecondary education. GAO was asked to review the state of
distance education at Minority Serving Institutions, which are
schools that serve high percentages of minority students,
including Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians. Under Titles
III and V of the Higher Education Act, these schools are eligible
for grants that can be used for expanding their technology,
including distance education. GAO's review focused on (1) the use
of distance education at Minority Serving Institutions, (2) key
factors influencing these schools' decisions about whether or not
to offer distance education, and (3) steps the Department of
Education could take, if any, to improve monitoring efforts of
technological progress under Titles III and V programs.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-03-900
ACCNO: A08409
TITLE: Distance Education: More Data Could Improve Education's
Ability to Track Technology at Minority Serving Institutions
DATE: 09/12/2003
SUBJECT: Aid for education
Black colleges
College students
Colleges and universities
Decision making
Educational grants
Higher education
Hispanics
Information technology
Internet
Minority education
Monitoring
Native American education
Performance measures
Teleconferencing
Dept. of Education Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System
Minority Serving Institutions
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-900
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
Report to Congressional Requesters
September 2003
DISTANCE EDUCATION
More Data Could Improve Education's Ability to Track Technology at Minority
Serving Institutions
GAO-03-900
Contents
Letter
Results in Brief
Background
There Are Some Variations in the Use of Distance Education at
Minority Serving Institutions Compared to Other Schools
Teaching Preference and Resources Available for Distance
Education Affect the Extent to Which Minority Serving
Institutions Offer Distance Education
Education Can Further Refine Its Programs for Monitoring
Technology Usage at Minority Serving Institutions
Conclusions
Recommendations
Agency Comments
1
4 6
15
24
30 34 34 35
Appendix I Scope and Methodology
Appendix II Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Appendix III Hispanic Serving Institutions
Appendix IV Tribal Colleges
Appendix V Comments from the Department of Education
Appendix VI GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 56
Contacts 56
Staff Acknowledgments 56
Tables
Table 1: Selected Characteristics of Minority Serving Institutions 7
Table 2: Characteristics of Grants for Minority Serving Institutions
under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended 14 Table 3: Differences
in the Types of Activities Monitored by
Education in Minority Serving Institution Annual Reports 32
Figures
Figure 1: Distribution of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, by State 8 Figure 2: Distribution of Hispanic Serving
Institutions, by State 10 Figure 3: Distribution of Tribal Colleges, by
State 12 Figure 4: Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions That Offer
Distance Education Is about the Same as the Percentage
for Other Schools 17 Figure 5: Higher Percentage of Larger Historically
Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions Offer
Distance Education 19
Figure 6: Higher Percentage of Public Minority Serving Institutions Offer
Distance Education 20 Figure 7: Percent of Minority Serving Institutions
Offering Degree Programs Is about the Same or Less Than Other Schools 22
Figure 8: Distance Education Generally Ranks Lower in Relation to Other
Technology Goals 27 Figure 9: Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions
That Have
Strategic and Financial Plans for Expanding Their
Technology Infrastructure 29
Abbreviations
IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System NPSAS National
Postsecondary Education Data System PEQIS Postsecondary Education Quick
Information System
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
September 12, 2003
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
United States Senate
The Honorable George Miller
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Education and the Workforce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Ruben Hinojosa
House of Representatives
The Honorable Major Owens
House of Representatives
For over 100 years, the Congress has recognized that some postsecondary
institutions have roles to play in providing minority students with help
in
attaining their educational goals and developing skills necessary to move
into all facets of the American economy. In the 2000-01 school year,
465 schools, or about 7 percent of postsecondary institutions in the
United States,1 served about 35 percent of all Black, American Indian, and
Hispanic students. These schools have special designation under federal
law as Minority Serving Institutions.2
Like other postsecondary institutions, over the last decade, Minority
Serving Institutions have faced the challenge of trying to keep pace with
rapidly changing technology usage in education. Part of keeping pace with
technology involves using it in traditional classroom education, but one
growing area-distance education-has commanded particular attention.
As defined in federal law, distance education is, "an educational process
1These include institutions in territories of the United States, such as
Puerto Rico and Guam, that are authorized to distribute federal student
financial aid.
2The three main types of Minority Serving Institutions are Historically
Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges, and Hispanic Serving
Institutions. Other types of Minority Serving Institutions include Alaska
Native and Native Hawaiian serving institutions.
that is characterized by the separation, in time or place, between
instructor and student."3 Some examples of course delivery methods include
the Internet, videoconferencing, and videocassettes. Distance education
offers opportunities for students to take classes without considering
where they live or when classes may be available. In the 1999-2000 school
year, about one in every 13 postsecondary students enrolled in at least 1
distance education course, and the Department of Education (Education)
estimates that the number of students involved in distance education has
tripled in just 4 years. For the most part, students taking distance
education courses can qualify for student financial aid in the same way as
students taking traditional courses. As the largest provider of student
financial aid to postsecondary students (an estimated $60 billion in
fiscal year 2003), the federal government has a substantial interest in
distance education. Under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended, the federal government provides grants, loans, and work-study
wages for millions of students each year.
The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, provides specific federal
support for Minority Serving Institutions through Titles III and V. In
2002, grants funded under these two titles provided over $300 million for
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving
Institutions, and Tribal Colleges to improve their academic quality,
institutional management, and fiscal stability. Technology is one of the
many purposes to which these grants can be applied. As the Congress
prepares to reauthorize the act, you asked us to examine several issues
related to Minority Serving Institutions and technology-and particularly
to distance education. We focused our work on determining (1) whether the
use of distance education varies between Minority Serving Institutions and
non-Minority Serving Institutions; (2) what factors Minority Serving
Institutions consider when deciding whether to offer distance education;
and (3) what steps Education could take, if any, to improve its monitoring
of technological progress, including distance education, at Minority
Serving Institutions under Titles III and V. In September 2002, we
testified on some of these issues before the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.4 Additionally, you asked us to look at the
quality of distance education and examine any statutory and regulatory
320 U.S.C. 1093(h).
4U.S. General Accounting Office, Distance Education: Growth in Distance
Education Programs and Implications for Federal Education Policy,
GAO-02-1125T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 2002).
issues related to distance education. We plan to issue a report on those
topics later this year.
Our findings are based on questionnaires that were developed and sent to
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving
Institutions, and Tribal Colleges. Seventy-eight percent, 75 percent, and
82 percent of the schools responded, respectively. We compared the results
of our survey with Education's July 2003 report entitled Distance
Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Education Institutions:
2000-2001. This survey was sent to over 1,600 2-year and 4-year degree
granting institutions that were eligible for federal student aid programs
and provided information on distance education offerings by these schools.
However, the data from our survey and the survey conducted by Education
are not completely comparable because they cover two different time
periods. We also analyzed two databases produced by Education's National
Center for Education Statistics. We analyzed data from the National
Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS)5 to examine the characteristics of
postsecondary students, including those who attended Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, involved in
distance education programs. We analyzed data from the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)6 to examine the
characteristics of postsecondary institutions. Additionally, we conducted
site visits to selected schools drawn from these three types of Minority
Serving Institutions. We interviewed Education officials involved in
programs aimed at improving the quality of education at Minority Serving
Institutions. Finally, we interviewed numerous experts on distance
education. A more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology is
included in appendix I. We performed our work between October 2002 and
September 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
5NPSAS is a nationwide survey conducted every 3 to 4 years that collects
demographic information on postsecondary students, as well as information
on how postsecondary students fund their education. NPSAS randomly samples
about 19 million students attending over 6,000 institutions eligible for
the federal student aid programs. The most recent NPSAS covers the
1999-2000 school year.
6IPEDS is a system of surveys designed to collect data from all primary
providers of postsecondary education. These surveys collect
institution-level data in such areas as enrollments, program completions,
faculty, staff, and finances. Data are collected annually from
approximately 9,600 postsecondary institutions, including over 6,000
institutions eligible for the federal student aid programs.
Results in Brief
There are some variations in the use of distance education at Minority
Serving Institutions compared to other schools. It is difficult to
generalize across the Minority Serving Institutions, but available data
indicate that while Minority Serving Institutions tend to offer at least
one distance education course at the same rate as other schools, they
differ in how many courses are offered and which students take the
courses. Overall, the percentage of schools offering at least one distance
education course in the 2002-03 school year was 56 percent for
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 63 percent for Hispanic
Serving Institutions, and 63 percent for Tribal Colleges, based on data
from our questionnaire. Similarly, 56 percent of 2- and 4-year schools
across the country offered at least one distance education course in the
2000-01 school year, according to a separate survey conducted by
Education. Minority Serving Institutions also tended to mirror other
schools in that larger schools were more likely to offer distance
education than smaller schools, and public schools were more likely to
offer distance education than private schools. Tribal Colleges were an
exception; all of them were small, but the percentage of schools offering
distance education courses was relatively high compared to other smaller
schools. The greater use of distance education among Tribal Colleges may
reflect their need to serve students who often live in remote areas. In
two respects, however, the use of distance education at Minority Serving
Institutions differed from other schools. First, of those institutions
offering at least one distance education course, Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges generally offered fewer
distance education courses-a characteristic that may reflect the smaller
size of these two types of institutions compared to other schools. Second,
to the extent that data are available, they indicate that minority
students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic
Serving Institutions participate in distance education to a somewhat lower
degree than other students. For example, in the 1999-2000 school year,
fewer undergraduates at Historically Black Colleges and Universities took
distance education courses than students at non-Minority Serving
Institutions-6 percent v. 8.4 percent of undergraduates-a condition that
may reflect the fact that these schools offer fewer distance education
courses. Also, at Hispanic Serving Institutions, Hispanic students had
lower rates of participation in distance education than non-Hispanic
students attending these schools. These differences were statistically
significant.
Minority Serving Institutions take into account two key factors in
deciding whether to offer distance education, according to our
questionnaire responses. One is their preferred teaching method. About
half of Historically Black Colleges and Universities that currently do not
offer
distance education to undergraduates indicated that a primary reason for
not offering distance education was that they prefer teaching in the
classroom. For example, even though Howard University, a Historically
Black University in Washington, D.C., has substantial technology such as
multimedia rooms and sophisticated network capabilities, the school does
not offer distance education courses for undergraduates and has no plans
to do so because it prefers teaching undergraduates in the classroom. The
second factor reported by schools as a reason for not providing distance
education was limited resources for technology. Some Minority Serving
Institutions said they wanted to offer more distance education but had
limited technology to do so. For example, officials from the 10 Tribal
Colleges that do not offer any distance education indicated that
improvements in technology would be helpful. Officials at one Tribal
College told us that some residents of reservations tend to be place-bound
because of tribal and familial responsibilities; distance education would
be one of the few realistic postsecondary options for this population, if
technology were available. Technological limitations for Tribal Colleges
involve a lack of resources to purchase needed technologies and
difficulties in accessing technology, such as high-speed Internet, due to
the rural and remote location of many reservations. All three types of
schools identified the lack of resources-for investment in technology and
for technology support staff-as particular limitations. In addition, from
a broader context, Minority Serving Institutions reported that they view
distance education as just one of many goals for technology-with varying
degrees of priority depending on the college. In response to our survey,
officials from Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic
Serving Institutions more frequently indicated, for example, that relative
to goals such as increasing the use of technology in the classroom,
distance education ranks lower. At these schools, training faculty in the
use of technology and improving the use of information technology in the
classroom are higher priorities than distance education. By contrast,
officials at Tribal Colleges more frequently placed distance education as
a higher priority, reflecting their struggle to provide educational
opportunities to populations across large geographic areas. However, they
too identified other goals related to technology as important.
Education could improve its monitoring of technological progress-
including distance education-at Minority Serving Institutions under Titles
III and V by collecting more data on technology, including baseline data,
at these institutions. Education is taking steps to monitor the extent to
which its grant programs are improving the use of technology by Minority
Serving Institutions, but it has opportunities to track the expanding use
of technology-including distance education-by capturing information in a
more complete fashion across the three major types of Minority Serving
Institutions. While Education's tracking system appears to include
sufficient information on technology at Hispanic Serving Institutions, it
contains less information on the usage of grant funds for technology
improvements for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal
Colleges. Additionally, although Education has set a goal of improving
technology capacity at Minority Serving Institutions, it has not
established a baseline against which progress can be measured. If
Education is to be successful in measuring progress in this area, it may
need to take a more proactive role in modifying existing research efforts
to include information on the extent to which technology, including such
basic information as student access to computers, is available at all
schools. Having such information would provide policymakers and program
managers an improved basis for making budget and program decisions.
In this report, we are making recommendations to the Secretary of
Education to (1) direct managers of the Title III and V programs to
broaden their tracking systems so that they are applied in a more complete
manner to the different types of Minority Serving Institutions and (2)
study the feasibility of adding questions on distance education and
information technology to existing research efforts carried out by
Education.
We provided Education with a draft of this report for its review and
comment. In commenting on our draft report, Education generally agreed
with our findings and recommendations. Education's written comments are in
appendix V.
Background In general, Minority Serving Institutions vary in size and
scope and serve a high percentage of minority students, many of whom are
financially disadvantaged. In size, for example, they range from Texas
College, a Historically Black College with about 100 students, to
Miami-Dade Community College, a Hispanic Serving Institution with more
than 46,000 students. In scope, they range from schools with certificate
or 2-year degree programs to universities with an extensive array of
graduate and professional degree programs. Table 1 briefly compares the
three types of Minority Serving Institutions in terms of their number,
type, and size. Appendixes II to IV provide additional information about
the three types of institutions.
Table 1: Selected Characteristics of Minority Serving Institutions Type of
Institution Characteristics
Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Hispanic Serving Institutions Tribal Colleges
Number of schoolsa 102 334
Percent of each type of institution
Public 50 45
Private nonprofit 50 23
Private for-profit 0 32
Average number of students
per institution 2,685 5,141
Number of students served in
2000-01 274,000 1.7 million 13,500
Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Source: Department of Education and GAO analysis of IPEDS for the 2000-01
school year.
aThis figure represents the number of schools eligible for the federal
student aid programs in the 2000-01 school year based on our analysis of
IPEDS.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities are the oldest of the
Minority Serving Institutions. While the first Historically Black
University, Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, was founded in 1837, most
of the colleges and universities were founded between 1865 and 1890. In
the 2000-01 school year, there were 102 Historically Black Colleges and
Universities that were eligible for federal student aid programs,
including Xavier University in New Orleans, Louisiana; Howard University
in Washington, D.C.; and Spelman College in Atlanta, Georgia. Our analysis
of the 2000-01 IPEDS, shows that while Historically Black Colleges and
Universities represented 2 percent of all public and nonprofit
postsecondary institutions, they enrolled about 14 percent (223,359) of
Black non-Hispanic students in the United States. In all, the schools were
in 20 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands (see fig.
1). About 85 percent of the students enrolled at these institutions were
black Americans. Their students and parents have lower incomes, on
average, than students and parents at non-Minority Serving Institutions.
Hispanic Serving Institutions
Hispanic Serving Institutions were recognized as such under the 1992
amendments to the Higher Education Act7 and some of the schools first
received funding through the Higher Education Act in 1995. Under the
definition established by the Congress, a Hispanic Serving Institution
must have a student body that is at least 25 percent Hispanic, and at
least half of the Hispanic students must be low-income. In the 2000-01
school year, there were 334 Hispanic Serving Institutions, including Long
Beach City College in California; the University of Miami in Florida; and
the University of New Mexico. Our analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that
while Hispanic Serving Institutions represented only 5 percent of all
postsecondary institutions, they enrolled 48 percent (798,489) of all
Hispanic students. These schools were located in 14 states and Puerto Rico
(see fig. 2). About 51 percent of the students enrolled at these
institutions are Hispanic. Compared to the two other major categories of
Minority Serving Institutions, Hispanic Serving Institutions are generally
larger and have more racial diversity in their student body. They are also
the only type to include private for-profit schools, such as ITT Technical
Colleges. Their students and parents have lower incomes, on average, than
students and parents at non-Minority Serving Institutions.
7Pub. L. No. 102-325, S: 302(d) (1992).
Figure 2: Distribution of Hispanic Serving Institutions, by State
Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS data.
Tribal Colleges
Most Tribal Colleges were founded in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1998, the
Higher Education Act8 was amended to create a grant program for Tribal
Colleges to improve educational quality offered to their students, and
some of the schools first received funds in 1998. In the 2000-01 school
year, there were 29 Tribal Colleges located in 12 states (see fig. 3).
They included Dine College in Tsaile, Arizona; Salish Kootenai College in
Pablo, Montana; and Oglala Lakota College in Kyle, South Dakota. Our
analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that while Tribal Colleges were less
than 1 percent of all public and private nonprofit postsecondary
institutions, they enrolled 8 percent (11,262) of all American
Indian/Alaska Native students in the United States. Tribal Colleges are
the smallest of the three major types of Minority Serving Institutions,
averaging less than 500 students, and nearly all are 2-year schools. About
85 percent of the students attending Tribal Colleges in the fall of 2000
were American Indian/Alaska Native. The percentage of students at Tribal
Colleges who receive Pell Grants-a type of financial aid made available to
the neediest students- was more than double that of students at
non-Minority Serving Institutions (60 percent v. 24 percent).9
8Pub. L. No. 105-244, S: 303(e) (1998).
9Although NPSAS contained data allowing us to develop information on the
economic status of students and families at Historically Black Colleges
and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, this database
contained data on students at only one Tribal College. The Pell Grant
information is the only other information we were able to develop from
Education's databases.
Figure 3: Distribution of Tribal Colleges, by State
Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS data.
Federal Aid to Minority Through certain provisions in the Higher Education
Act, the Congress has
Serving Institutions recognized the role that Minority Serving
Institutions play in serving the needs of students, many of whom are from
disadvantaged backgrounds. These provisions authorize grants for
augmenting the limited resources that many Minority Serving Institutions
have for funding their academic programs. Historically Black Colleges and
Universities are eligible for grants funded through Title III, part B;
Hispanic Serving Institutions
through Title V, part A; and Tribal Colleges through Title III, part A10
of the Higher Education Act. These grants seek to improve the academic
quality, institutional management, and fiscal stability of eligible
institutions. More specifically, according to Title III, part B,
Historically Black Colleges and Universities receive grants, in part, to
remedy discriminatory action of the states and the federal government
against Black colleges and universities. Hispanic Serving Institutions
receive funds to expand educational opportunities for and improve the
academic attainment of Hispanic students. Finally, the grants for Tribal
Colleges seek to improve and expand the colleges' capacity to serve
American Indian students. The Congress has identified as many as 14 areas
in which institutions may use funds for improving their academic programs.
Authorized uses include purchase or rental of telecommunications equipment
or services, support of faculty development, and purchase of library
books, periodicals, and other educational materials. Table 2 provides more
information on each type of grant.11
10All Tribal Colleges also receive a majority of their operating funds
from various federal sources, such as the Tribally Controlled College or
University Assistance Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-471 (1978). Whether they
receive state funding, however, varies from state to state.
11Federal aid also flows to these institutions in a number of other forms.
For example, students at these colleges or universities are eligible for
the federal student aid programs, including Pell Grants and other funding
for low-income students, such as student loans and work-study funds. In
addition, other federal entities, such as the National Science Foundation,
the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense have programs
that Minority Serving Institutions could use to improve information
technology on their campuses.
Table 2: Characteristics of Grants for Minority Serving Institutions under
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended
Type of grant
Title III, part B Title V, part A
Historically Black Hispanic Title III, part A
Colleges and Serving Tribal
Characteristics Universities Institutionsa Colleges
Amount of funding in 1999 $136 million $28 million $3 million
Number of schools funded in 1999 98 39
Amount of funding in 2002 $206 million $86 million $17.5 million
Number of schools funded in 2002 99 172b
Type of grant Formulaic/non-Competitivec Competitivec
c
competitive
Duration of individual grants 5 yearsd 5 years d 5 yearsd
Wait-out period (minimum
number of years between
grants) None 2 years None
Source: The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended and the Department of
Education.
aHispanic Serving Institutions are the only Minority Serving Institutions
that include private for-profit schools. Private for-profit schools are
not eligible for funding under Title V, part A.
bIn 2002, 172 Hispanic Serving Institutions received 191 grants. Nineteen
of the 172 institutions received 2 grants-an individual grant and a
cooperative development grant.
cTribal Colleges and Hispanic Serving Institutions receive grants based on
a ranking of applications from a competitive peer review evaluation.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities receive grants based on a
formula that considers, in part, the number of Pell Grant recipients, the
number of graduates, and the number of students that enroll in graduate
school within 5 years after earning an undergraduate degree.
dHistorically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving
Institutions, and Tribal Colleges are required to prepare and submit a
5-year comprehensive development plan when they participate in Title III,
part A, Title V, part A, or Title III, part B programs.
One area to which such funds can be directed is technology, both inside
the classroom and, in the form of distance education, outside the
classroom. Both inside and outside the classroom, technology is changing
how institutions educate their students, and Minority Serving
Institutions, like other schools, are grappling with how best to adapt.
Through such methods as E-mail, chat rooms, and direct instructional
delivery via the Internet, technology can enhance students' ability to
learn any time, any place, rather than be bound by time in the classroom
or in the library. For Minority Serving Institutions, the importance of
technology takes on an additional dimension in that available research
indicates their students may arrive with less prior access to technology,
such as computers and the
Distance Education
Internet, than their counterparts in other schools.12 These students may
need considerable exposure to technology to be fully equipped with
job-related skills.
Distance education is one major application of this new technology.
Although distance education is not a new concept, it has assumed markedly
newer forms and greater prominence over the past decade. Distance
education can trace its history to the 1870s when correspondence courses-a
home study course generally completed by mail-were first offered. Now,
distance education is increasingly delivered in electronic forms, such as
videoconferencing and the Internet. Through these approaches, distance
education provides postsecondary education access to students who may live
in remote locations or whose schedules require greater flexibility. For
example, schools such as the University of Phoenix Online and the
University of Maryland University College target entire distance learning
degree programs to working adults who take their classes largely at home.
Distance education's effect on helping students complete their courses of
study is still largely unknown. Although there is some anecdotal evidence
that distance education can help students complete their programs or
graduate from college, school officials that we spoke to did not identify
any studies that evaluated the extent to which distance education has
improved completion or graduation rates.
There Are Some Variations in the Use of Distance Education at Minority Serving
Institutions Compared to Other Schools
It is difficult to generalize across the Minority Serving Institutions,
but available data indicate that while Minority Serving Institutions tend
to offer at least one distance education course at about the same rate as
other schools, they differ in how many courses are offered and which
students take the distance education courses. Minority Serving
Institutions tend to be similar to non-Minority Serving Institutions in
the percentage of schools that offer distance education, and to a
considerable degree, they also mirror other schools in that distance
education is more prominent at larger schools and at public schools.
However, there are also differences between Minority Serving Institutions
and other schools, and between the three categories of Minority Serving
Institutions we reviewed. We found that Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and Tribal Colleges offered fewer distance education courses
than other schools, which may be a reflection of their generally smaller
size. The limited data available
12The Web-Based Education Commission, The Power of the Internet for
Learning: Moving from Promise to Practice. (Washington D.C.: December
2000).
about student participation in distance education indicates that minority
students may be somewhat less involved in distance education than other
students. In the 1999-2000 school year, for example, 6 percent of students
at Historically Black Colleges and Universities were involved with
distance education, compared with 8.4 percent at non-Minority Serving
institutions-perhaps reflecting the fewer number of distance education
courses that Historically Black Colleges and Universities offer. This
result is statistically significant.
Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions Offering at Least One Distance
Education Course Is about the Same as the Percentage for Other Schools
The percentage of Minority Serving Institutions that offered at least one
distance education course is about the same as the percentage for all
degree granting postsecondary institutions eligible for the federal
student aid programs. Education's July 2003 report indicates that about 56
percent of 2-year and 4-year institutions whose students were eligible for
federal student aid programs offered distance education courses during the
2000-01 school year.13 The results from our questionnaire showed that
about 56 percent of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 63
percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 63 percent of Tribal
Colleges offered at least one distance education course (see fig. 4).
However, the data from our survey and the survey conducted by Education
are not completely comparable because they cover two different time
periods. Education's survey covered the 2000-01 school year while our
survey covered the 2002-03 school year.14
13Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics,
Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions:
2000-2001. (Washington D.C.: July 2003).
14Our survey and Education's survey are also different in the way that
information was summarized. For example, Education's survey aggregates all
private nonprofit schools and private for-profit schools as private
schools. Our survey breaks out these types of schools into separate
categories.
Figure 4: Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions That Offer Distance
Education Is about the Same as the Percentage for Other Schools
Percentage 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 0
All khoolssc
Historically Blac
Colleges and
Universities Institutions
Hispanic Serving
ibalrT
Colleg
es
Minority Serving Institutions
Source: Department of Education and GAO's Minority Serving Institution
survey.
According to our survey, Minority Serving Institutions offered distance
education courses15 for two main reasons: (1) it improves access to
courses for some students who live away from campus and (2) it provides
convenience to older, working, or married students. The following examples
illustrate these conditions.
o Northwest Indian College, a Tribal College in Bellingham, Washington,
has over 10 percent of its 600 students involved in distance education. It
offers distance education by videoconference equipment or correspondence.
The College offers over 20 distance education courses, such as mathematics
and English to students at seven remote locations in Washington and Idaho.
According to College officials, distance education technology is
15The two most common modes of delivering distance education for Minority
Serving Institutions were (1) on-line courses using a computer and (2)
live courses transmitted via videoconference.
essential because it provides access to educational opportunities to
students who live away from campus. For example, some students taking
distance education courses live hundreds of miles from the College in
locations such as the Nez Perce Reservation in Idaho and the Makah
Reservation in Neah Bay, Washington. According to school officials,
students involved in distance education tend to be older with dependents,
and therefore, find it difficult to take courses outside of their
community. Also, one official noted that staying within the tribal
community is valued and distance education allows members of tribes to
stay close to their community and still obtain skills or a degree.
o The University of the Incarnate Word is a private nonprofit Hispanic
Serving Institution with an enrollment of about 6,900 students. The
school, located in San Antonio, Texas, offers on-line degree and
certificate programs, including degrees in business, nursing, and
information technology. About 2,400 students are enrolled in the school's
distance education program. The school's on-line programs are directed at
nontraditional students (students who are 24 years old or older), many of
whom are Hispanic. In general, the ideal candidates for the on-line
program are older students, working adults, or adult learners who have
been out of high school for 5 or more years, according to the Provost and
the Director of Instructional Technology.
Distance Education at Most Minority Serving Institutions Follows National
Trends with Regard to Size and Type of School Offering at Least One
Distance Education Course
For the most part, those Minority Serving Institutions that offered at
least one distance education course tended to be similar to other schools
offering at least one distance education course with regard to size and
type of school. Our survey results showed that Historically Black Colleges
and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions with 3,001 to 9,999
students were more than twice as likely to offer distance education
courses as schools with 2,000 or fewer students (see fig. 5). Similarly,
in July 2003, Education reported that a higher percentage of larger
schools eligible for federal student aid programs offered distance
education compared with smaller schools. Education reported its results
using somewhat different size categories than the ones we used in our
questionnaire, so the results cannot be presented side by side for
comparative purposes. However, according to Education's report, the
distribution was much the same: 41 percent of the schools with an
enrollment of less than 3,000 offered distance education courses, compared
with 88 percent of the schools with an enrollment of 3,000 to 9,999 and 95
percent of the schools with an enrollment of greater than 10,000.
Figure 5: Higher Percentage of Larger Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions Offer Distance Education
Percentage offering distance education
100
80
60
40
20
0 0-2,000 2,001-3,000 3,001-9,999 Enrollment at Minority Serving
Institutions
Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Hispanic Serving Institutions
Source: GAO's Minority Serving Institution survey.
Our survey disclosed that Tribal Colleges, even though all have fewer than
2,000 students, were noticeably different from Historically Black Colleges
and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions in the extent to which
they were involved with distance education. Among Tribal Colleges, 65
percent offered at least one distance education course, compared with 34
percent of Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 33 percent of
Hispanic Serving Institutions with 2,000 or fewer students. Our site
visits to these schools raised several possible explanations. Potential
students of many Tribal Colleges live in communities dispersed over large
geographic areas-in some cases, potential students might live over a
hundred miles from the nearest Tribal College or satellite campus- making
it difficult or impossible for some students to commute to these schools.
In these cases, distance education is an appealing way to deliver courses
to remote locations. Also, officials at one Tribal College told us that
some residents of reservations may be place-bound due to tribal and
familial responsibilities, making distance education one of the few
realistic postsecondary education options. Also important, according to
some
officials, is that tribal residents have expressed an interest in
enrolling in distance education courses.
With regard to type of school, Minority Serving Institutions mirrored the
national trend in that the percentage of Minority Serving Institutions
offering distance education was higher among public than private
institutions (see fig. 6). Among public Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, about 80 percent or more
offered distance education; these percentages dropped by 20 percent or
more for private nonprofit schools and was even lower for private
for-profit schools. Similarly, Education's survey showed that about 90
percent of 4-year public institutions offered distance education, compared
with 40 percent of private institutions.
Figure 6: Higher Percentage of Public Minority Serving Institutions Offer
Distance Education
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges Tend to
Offer Fewer Distance Education Courses
While roughly the same percentage of Minority Serving Institutions offered
at least one distance education course as non-Minority Serving
Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal
Colleges tended to offer fewer courses. For example, of the schools that
offered at least one distance education course, 52 percent of the
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 61 percent of Tribal
Colleges offered 10 or fewer undergraduate distance education courses. By
contrast, only 27 percent of 2-year and 4-year institutions that offered
at least one distance education course and that were eligible for the
federal student aid programs offered 10 or fewer distance education
courses, according to Education's survey. Similarly, about 25 percent of
Hispanic Serving Institutions that offered at least one distance education
course also offered 10 or fewer courses. To some extent, these differences
may reflect the fact that Historically Black Colleges and Universities and
Tribal Colleges, as a group, are smaller than other institutions. The
relationship discussed earlier about an institution's enrollment and the
size of its distance education program may help explain why the number of
courses offered via distance education are generally smaller at these two
types of Minority Serving Institutions.
While the overall size of the distance education programs was smaller, the
percentage of Minority Serving Institutions offering degree programs
through distance education was close to that of other schools. Education
reported that about 19 percent of 2-year and 4-year institutions eligible
for the federal student aid programs offered degree or certificate
programs that could be earned entirely through distance education.
Similarly, about 19 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions and about 17
percent of Historically Black Colleges and Universities offered degree or
certificate programs through distance education (see fig. 7). The
percentage was lower for Tribal Colleges (11 percent).
Figure 7: Percent of Minority Serving Institutions Offering Degree
Programs Is about the Same or Less Than Other Schools
Percentage 25
20
By analyzing Education's NPSAS database, we were also able to make some
comparisons of the number of students taking distance education courses at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving
Institutions, and non-Minority Serving Institutions. We were unable to
develop data on the extent that Tribal College students use distance
education because NPSAS included data from only one Tribal College. There
appears to be a difference between minority students and other students in
the extent to which they are involved with distance education courses.
More specifically:
o Students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities tend to use
distance education to a lesser extent than students at other schools. In
school year 1999-2000, about 6 percent of undergraduate students at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities enrolled in at least one
distance education course and about 1.1 percent took their entire program
through distance education. By comparison, 8.4 percent of undergraduates
at other schools enrolled in at least one distance education course, and
15
10 5
0
All khoolssc
Historically Blac
Colleges and
Universities Institutions
Hispanic Serving
ibalrT
Colleg
es
Minority Serving Institutions
Source: Department of Education and GAO Minority Serving Institution
survey.
Fewer Minority Students Take Distance Education Courses
2.5 percent took their entire program through distance education. These
differences may reflect the fact that Historically Black Colleges and
Universities generally offer fewer distance education courses than
non-Minority Serving Institutions.
o Hispanic students attending Hispanic Serving Institutions use distance
education at a lower rate than other students at the same schools. About
51 percent of the undergraduates at Hispanic Serving Institutions are
Hispanic, but they comprise only about 40 percent of the undergraduate
students enrolled in distance education classes. This difference is
statistically significant. Similarly, our analysis also shows that the
greater the percentage of Hispanic students at the institution, the lower
the overall rate of distance education use at that school.
We analyzed student characteristics, such as their age and income, to
determine if these characteristics could explain why these students were
less involved in distance education, but our analysis did not establish
such a link. The analysis showed that distance education students are more
likely to be older, married, independent, a part-time student, and have a
higher income than the average postsecondary student. Conversely, the
average student at Historically Black Colleges and Universities is more
likely to be younger, single, dependent, a full-time student, and have a
lower income than the average postsecondary student, and to a somewhat
lesser degree, the characteristics of students at Hispanic Serving
Institutions tend to follow the same pattern. When we conducted a logistic
regression analysis16 to analyze these differences more carefully, we did
not find that these characteristics tended to explain the extent to which
a student is involved in distance education. Among the characteristics
that we describe above, only a single student characteristic-marital
status- was associated with whether a student enrolls in distance
education, and this relationship was limited. This suggests that there may
be other reasons, such as fewer courses being offered, that help explain
why a smaller percentage of students at Historically Black Colleges and
Hispanic students at Hispanic Serving Institutions enroll in distance
education courses.
16Logistic regression procedures are often used to estimate the size and
significance of the associations of different factors, such as marital
status, age, and family income with a discrete or categorical outcome,
such as whether a student did (or did not) take a distance education
course in the past year.
Teaching Preference and Resources Available for Distance Education Affect the
Extent to Which Minority Serving Institutions Offer Distance Education
According to officials of Minority Serving Institutions, there are two
factors that explain why some Minority Serving Institutions do not offer
distance education. First, nearly half of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions did not offer any distance
education because they preferred to teach their students in the classroom
rather than through distance education. Limited resources is the second
factor reported by schools for not providing distance education. In
addition, when placed within a broader context of technology improvements,
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving
Institutions viewed distance education as a relatively low priority when
compared to other purposes, such as increasing the use of information
technology in the classroom. Most Tribal Colleges also viewed expanding
technology usage on campus as a high priority, but they more frequently
considered distance education a higher priority than Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions.
By Design, Some Minority Serving Institutions Prefer Not to Offer Distance
Education
To a great degree or very great degree, nearly half of Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions indicated that
they do not offer distance education because classroom education best
meets the needs of their students.17 Conversely, only 10 percent of Tribal
Colleges that are not involved in distance education indicated that
classroom education best meets the needs of their students. Here are
examples from two schools that prefer teaching their students in the
classroom rather than by the use of distance education.
o Howard University, an Historically Black University in Washington,
D.C., with about 10,000 students, has substantial information technology;
however, it prefers to use the technology in teaching undergraduates on
campus rather than through developing and offering distance education. The
University has state-of-the-art hardware and software, such as wireless
access to the school's network; a digital auditorium; and a 24-hour-a-day
Technology Center, which support and enhance the academic achievement for
its students. Despite its technological capabilities, the University does
not offer distance education courses to undergraduates and has no plans to
do so. According to the Dean of Scholarships and Financial Aid, the
University prefers teaching undergraduates in the classroom because more
self-discipline is needed
17Forty-four percent of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 37
percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 39 percent of Tribal
Colleges do not offer any distance education.
when taking distance education courses. Also, many undergraduates benefit
from the support provided by students and faculty in a classroom setting.
o Robert Morris College is a private nonprofit Hispanic Serving
Institution located in Chicago, Illinois, that offers bachelor degrees in
business, computer technology, and health sciences. About 25 percent of
its 6,200 undergraduates are Hispanic. Although the College has one
computer for every four students, it does not offer distance education
courses and has no plans to do so. School officials believe that classroom
education best meets the needs of its students because of the personal
interaction that occurs in a classroom setting.
Some Schools Would Like to Offer More Distance Education, but Have Limited
Resources to Do So
Among Minority Serving Institutions that do not offer distance education,
over 50 percent would like to offer distance education in the future, but
indicated that they have limited resources with which to do so. About half
of Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving
Institutions that do not offer distance education indicated that they do
not have the necessary technology-including students with access to
computers or the Internet at their residences-for distance education. A
higher percentage of Tribal Colleges (67 percent) cited limitations in
technology as a reason why they do not offer distance education.
Technological limitations are twofold for Tribal Colleges. The first, and
more obvious limitation is a lack of resources to purchase and develop
needed technologies. The second is that due to the remote location of some
campuses, schools do not have access to needed technology-that is, schools
may be limited to the technology of the surrounding communities. For
example, a school cannot purchase certain technologies that are not
provided in those communities. All 10 Tribal Colleges that did not offer
distance education indicated that improvements in technology, such as
videoconference equipment and network infrastructure with greater speed,
would be helpful. Here are some examples of how resource limitations
impact development of distance education programs at Minority Serving
Institutions.
o Little Priest Tribal College, located on the Winnebago Indian
Reservation in northeastern Nebraska, does not offer any distance
education courses, but would like to do so in the future. The college
serves about 160 undergraduates and the Academic Dean indicated that
two-way videoconference equipment and support personnel would be needed in
order to offer distance education courses. She said that the school would
like to offer courses in the native language (called Ho Chunk) of the
Winnebago Tribe. Currently, a native speaker capable of teaching the
language resides in Wisconsin-hundreds of miles from the Winnebago
reservation. Having such equipment would allow the instructor to teach the
native language to students who attend classes on campus, according to the
Academic Dean.
o Fisk University, an Historically Black University in Nashville,
Tennessee, serves about 800 undergraduates and about 30 graduate students.
The school does not offer distance education courses, but hopes to do so
in the future. The Director, Academic Computing, indicated that distance
education would help supplement the curriculum that the school currently
offers to students. The school would also like to offer on-line courses in
African-American History, however, it currently does not have the
information technology equipment for distance education.
For Many Institutions, Expanding Technology on Campus is More Important
Than Applying It to Distance Education
Minority Serving Institutions generally indicated that offering more
distance education was a lower priority than using technology to educate
their classroom students. All of the institutions reported that their
highest priority was providing more training for faculty in the use of
information technology as a teaching method. Other priorities included
improving network infrastructure, increasing the use of technology in
classrooms, and guaranteeing that all students have access to a computer.
(See fig. 8 for a comparison of how distance education compares to other
selected technology goals.)
Figure 8: Distance Education Generally Ranks Lower in Relation to Other
Technology Goals
Priorities
Providing more training for faculty in the use of information technology
as a teaching method
Increasing the use of information technology in the classroom Improving
network infrastructure
Guaranteeing that all students have access to a computer
Increasing the number of students who have access to the Internet
Providing more training to faculty in the use of distance education as a
teaching method
Providing more training for students in the use of computers
Increasing the number of distance education programs
0 20406080
Percentage
Source: GAO's Minority Serving Institution survey.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Hispanic Serving Institutions
Tribal Colleges
Minority Serving Institutions indicated that they expect to have
difficulties in meeting their goals related to technology. Eighty-seven
percent of Tribal Colleges, 83 percent of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, and 82 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions cited
limitations in funding as a primary reason for why they may not achieve
their technology-related goals. For example, the Southwest Indian
Polytechnic Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico, serves about 670
students and it uses distance education to provide courses for an
associates degree in early childhood development to about 100 students.
The school uses two-way satellite
communication and transmits the courses to 11 remote locations. According
to a technology specialist at the school, this form of distance education
is expensive compared to other methods. As an alternative, the Institute
would like to establish two-way teleconferencing capability and Internet
access at the off-site locations as a means of expanding educational
opportunities. School officials noted, however, that many of the locations
have no telephone or Internet service because they are in such remote
areas of the state.
About half of the schools also noted that they might experience difficulty
in meeting their goals because they did not have enough staff to operate
and maintain information technology and to help faculty apply technology.
For example, officials at Dine College, a Tribal College on the Navajo
Reservation, told us they have not been able to fill a systems analyst
position for the last 3 years. School officials cited their remote
location and the fact that they are offering relatively low pay as
problems in attracting employees that have skills in operating and
maintaining technology equipment.
Having a systematic approach to expanding technology on campuses is an
important step toward modernizing and evaluating technology at
postsecondary schools. About 75 percent of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, 70 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions, and only 48
percent of Tribal Colleges had completed a strategic plan for expanding
their technology infrastructure. Fewer schools had completed a financial
plan for funding technology improvements. About half of Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 19
percent of Tribal Colleges have a financial plan for expanding their
information technology (see fig. 9).
Figure 9: Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions That Have Strategic
and Financial Plans for Expanding Their Technology Infrastructure
Studies by other organizations describe challenges faced by Minority
Serving Institutions in expanding their technology infrastructure. For
example, an October 2000 study by Booz, Allen, and Hamilton determined
that historically or predominantly Black colleges identified challenges in
funding, strategic planning, and keeping equipment up to date. An October
2000 report by the Department of Commerce found that most Historically
Black Colleges and Universities have access to computing resources, such
as high-speed Internet capabilities but individual student access to
campus networks is seriously deficient due to, among other things, lack of
student ownership of computers or lack of access from campus dormitories.
An April 2003 Senate Report noted that only one Tribal College has funding
for high-speed Internet.
Education Can Further Refine Its Programs for Monitoring Technology Usage at
Minority Serving Institutions
Education is taking steps to monitor the extent to which its grants are
improving the use of technology by Minority Serving Institutions; however,
its efforts could be improved in two ways. First, as Education creates a
new system for measuring the outcomes of its grants, it has opportunities
to more completely capture technology-related information, including
distance education, across the three major types of Minority Serving
Institutions. Second, although Education has set a goal of improving
technology capacity at Minority Serving Institutions, it has not yet
developed a baseline against which progress can be measured. If Education
is to be successful in developing such baseline data, it may need to
examine the potential use of its existing research efforts, such as IPEDS.
IPEDS is currently used to capture information on the different
characteristics of institutions involved in the federal student aid
programs. Education has studied the possibility of including
technology-related information in IPEDS, but so far, has yet to make a
decision on this matter.
Education Has Made Progress in Tracking Outcomes of Title III and Title V
Programs, but Additional Improvements May Be Needed to Ensure More
Complete Coverage Across the Major Types of Minority Serving Institutions
Increasing the technological capacity of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges is one
goal Education has identified in its 2002-03 annual performance plan.
Education's efforts are part of a larger effort by the administration to
emphasize the outcomes of federal programs. According to the Office of
Management and Budget, improving programs by focusing on results is an
integral component of the administration's budget preparation process. In
this regard, Education has made progress in tracking outcomes of its Title
III and Title V programs, but additional improvements may be needed to
make its efforts more complete across the three major types of Minority
Serving Institutions.
In spring 2000, Title III and Title V program staff began an effort to
improve the program monitoring system. As part of these efforts, Education
wanted to develop a system that can capture information to demonstrate how
grants improve the education of students that Minority Serving
Institutions serve. Among the activities that Education and grantees
discussed were how grants are being used to improve information technology
on campuses and how best to collect information on how such efforts
improve the education of students. For example, program staff held a
series of four meetings with about 200 schools and conducted telephone
conferences with another 90 institutions to obtain feedback on the format
and effectiveness of the draft annual performance report. The Office of
Management and Budget reviewed and approved the annual performance report
and commended Education for "substantial revisions" made to its
performance reporting system and "meaningful
interaction with stakeholders." In March 2003, Education received the
first set of data from its grantees for its annual performance report.
According to staff responsible for the annual performance report, the new
monitoring effort is a "work in progress" and continued improvements and
revisions will likely occur later this year.
In this regard, the progress Education has made in developing an annual
performance report that focuses on results is a major step toward
improving program performance, however, additional improvements may be
needed. More specifically, we found that the way Education tracks the
usage of grant funds for technology improvements among Minority Serving
Institutions may not completely reflect how Historically Black Colleges
and Universities and Tribal Colleges use their grants. The tracking of
technology-related information appears to be adequate for Hispanic Serving
Institutions. (See table 3.) For example, Education's tracking effort for
Hispanic Serving Institutions includes the extent to which program funds
(1) improve student and faculty access to the Internet, (2) increase the
number of computers available to students outside of classrooms, and (3)
expand the number of new distance education courses and students. Similar
information is not collected for Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and Tribal Colleges even though a substantial number of these
schools use grant funds to expand distance education offerings or to
improve technology on campus. Eight of the 11 Tribal Colleges that
received new Title III grants in 2001 stated that funds would be used to
develop or expand technology usage, including distance education.
Similarly, between 1999-2001, about 23 percent of Historically Black
Colleges and Universities that responded to our survey indicated that they
used Title III funds on distance education.
Table 3: Differences in the Types of Activities Monitored by Education in
Minority Serving Institution Annual Reports
Minority Serving Institution reports
Activities monitored Hispanic
by
Education in annual Historically Black Serving Tribal
performance reports Colleges and Institutions Colleges
for
Title III (part B), Universities (Title (Title V (Title III
Title V (part A),
and Title III (part A) III (part B)) (part A)) (part A))
Increase in the number Yesa Yes Yes
of "wired"
classrooms
Offer training to Yes Yes Yes
faculty in the use
of technology
Increase student Noa Yes No
access to the
Internet
Increase the number of No Yes No
computers
available to students
outside of
the classroom
Increase the number of
courses No Yes No
using technology
Increase the number of No Yes No
students
taking courses using
technology
Increase the number of No Yes No
students
using distance
learning
Source: Department of Education and GAO analysis of Education's Annual
Performance Reports for Title III, part A, Title III, part B, and Title V,
part A of the Higher Education Act, as amended.
aA "yes" response indicates that the information was collected in the
report. A "no" response indicates that the information was not collected
in the report.
According to managers of the Titles III and V programs, the differences in
the types of information on activities and outcomes that are captured for
each report stems from differences in the titles themselves. Title V, part
A, under which funds are provided to Hispanic Serving Institutions,
explicitly allows program funds to be used for "creating or improving
facilities for Internet or other distance learning academic instruction
capabilities, including purchase or rental of telecommunications
technology equipment or services." The program for Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (Title III, part B) and Tribal Colleges (Title
III, part A) does not specifically address the use of funds in this
manner, however, using grant funds for expanding distance education
offerings or technology usage are authorized activities, according to
Education staff. Inasmuch as Minority Serving Institutions indicated in
their questionnaire responses that they have an interest in expanding both
the use of technology in the classroom and distance education, it may be
appropriate to make the annual performance reports as inclusive as
possible.
Education Does Not Have Baseline Data to Measure Technological Capacity at
Minority Serving Institutions
One difficulty that Education will encounter in attempting to judge the
extent to which Minority Serving Institutions are increasing their
technological capacity is that it has no baseline to measure against.
Education may have opportunities to fill this void by expanding its
existing research efforts to include data on technology usage and
capabilities at all schools, including Minority Serving Institutions.18
One vehicle for accomplishing this could be through IPEDS, a product of
one of Education's research efforts that is conducted annually and that
contains data on the characteristics of institutions and their students'
eligibility for federal student aid programs.
Although Education has researched the usage of distance education19 at
postsecondary institutions, it does not collect data from postsecondary
institutions on the capacity of or improvements in their technology
infrastructure. The growing use of technology by postsecondary
institutions has surfaced as an important area of research in recent years
and Education has held meetings on how to measure technology capacity at
postsecondary institutions. Staff from the Title III and Title V programs
indicated that having such data for Minority Serving Institutions and
other institutions would provide a national perspective on technology
infrastructure at these schools. However, according to other Education
officials, two issues need to be addressed before such a change can be
made. First, there are different views on how to accurately measure
technology infrastructure at postsecondary institutions. For example, in
determining how many computers are available to students at a school,
there is no agreement on whether personal computers, computers in the
library, and computers for faculty should be included in total or in part.
Second, before Education expands any of its data collection efforts,
Office
18Education recognizes the importance of its research to policymakers and
other users. Education stated in its 2002-03 annual plan that it will
focus Education's research activities on topics of greatest relevance. In
this regard, the Congress has expressed interest in information technology
at Minority Institutions. In April 2003, the Senate passed S. 196,
Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity
Act of 2003 to strengthen technology infrastructure at Minority Serving
Institutions. If enacted, this statute would create a new grant program at
the National Science Foundation for funding technology improvements at
institutions that serve a high percentage of minority students.
19The Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics
has produced several reports on distance education, including Distance
Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2000-2001
(Washington D.C.: July 2003) and Distance Education Instruction by
Postsecondary Faculty and Staff: Fall 1998 (Washington D.C.: February
2002). While the reports provide aggregate data on distance education,
they do not provide data on distance education at Minority Serving
Institutions.
Conclusions
Recommendations
of Management and Budget regulations20 that implement the Paperwork
Reduction Act require agencies to evaluate, among other things, the need
for collecting data and the costs to respondents of generating,
maintaining, or providing the data. Education would need to determine how
best to resolve these issues before moving forward with any changes.
Minority Serving Institutions view the use of technology as a critical
tool in educating their students. Technology allows greater access to the
latest research and to a broader array of information. Ultimately,
Minority Serving Institutions, like other schools, face stiff challenges
in keeping pace with the rapid changes and opportunities presented by
information technology.
In creating the Title III and Title V programs, the Congress acknowledged
that Minority Serving Institutions have historically had limited resources
to invest in educating their students when compared to other institutions.
More complete data on how Historically Black Colleges and Universities and
Tribal Colleges use Title III funds for improving technology on campus,
and thus, the education of students, would help inform program managers
and policymakers about progress that has been made and opportunities for
improvement. Additionally, as Education examines the many research efforts
it has, it may find it beneficial to collect information on distance
education and technology capacity at postsecondary institutions. Doing so
would provide baseline data on Minority Serving Institutions and the
progress they make in improving their technology capacity.
We recommend that the Secretary of Education (1) direct managers of the
Title III and Title V programs to further improve their annual performance
report for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal
Colleges by including areas such as student access to computers and the
number of distance education courses that were offered and (2) study the
feasibility of adding questions on distance education and information
technology to an existing study at Education, such as IPEDS, to develop
baseline data on technology capacity at Minority Serving Institutions and
to judge the extent to which progress is being made.
205 C.F.R., part 1320.
Agency Comments
In commenting on a draft of this report, Education generally agreed with
our findings and recommendations. Specifically, Education agreed to
broaden its monitoring of Title III and Title V programs to ensure that
appropriate information about the needs of institutions in the area of
distance learning and technology for course delivery are considered.
Education generally agreed with our second recommendation to study the
feasibility of adding questions on distance education and information
technology to existing research efforts that it carries out. Education
stated that it would explore expanding the sample of the Postsecondary
Education Quick Information System (PEQIS) to include more Minority
Serving Institutions. According to Education, PEQIS is used to collect
information on topics of national importance from postsecondary
institutions. Education used PEQIS to collect data for three distance
education studies, including the most recent, Distance Education at
Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2000-2001, data from which we
used in this report. Also, Education stated that it would consider our
specific suggestion related to what data could be collected from
institutions under IPEDS. In addition to commenting on our
recommendations, Education offered some technical comments on the report
and we revised the draft report when appropriate. Education's written
comments are reprinted in appendix V.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 24 days from
its
issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
appropriate
congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, and other
interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no
charge on
GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or members of your staffs have any questions regarding this report,
please call me on (202) 512-8403. Other contacts and acknowledgments
are listed in appendix VI.
Cornelia M. Ashby
Director, Education, Workforce,
and Income Security
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
To determine whether the use of distance education varies between Minority
Serving Institutions and non-Minority Serving Institutions, we developed
and sent questionnaires to a fall 2000 list of 108 Historically Black
Colleges and Universities,1 334 Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 32
Tribal Colleges2 that we received from Education. Each type of school
received a distinct questionnaire. The questionnaires had questions on
whether the institution offered distance education, and if so, how many
courses and degree programs were offered. The response rate to each
questionnaire was 78 percent for Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, 75 percent for Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 82 percent
for Tribal Colleges. We compared the results of the survey with a July
2003 report from Education's National Center for Education Statistics
entitled Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Education
Institutions: 2000-2001. This survey was sent to over 1,600 2-year and
4-year degree granting institutions that were eligible for the federal
student aid programs and provided information on distance education
offerings by these schools. We also analyzed the National Postsecondary
Student Aid Survey (NPSAS) to determine the extent that students at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving
Institutions enrolled in distance education courses. NPSAS contains
information on characteristics of students who attended postsecondary
institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities and
Hispanic Serving Institutions in the 1999-2000 school year. NPSAS
contained information on students at only one Tribal College, so we were
unable to develop similar information for students attending Tribal
Colleges. Finally, we analyzed IPEDS to develop data on the institutional
characteristics of Minority Serving Institutions.
1When we analyzed the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS), we limited our work to the 102 Historically Black Colleges and
Universities that were eligible for the federal student aid programs. For
our survey instrument, we received a list of 108 Historically Black
Colleges and Universities from Education. Five of the schools were not
eligible for federal student aid programs in 2000-01 (Carver State
Technical College; Selma University; Shorter College; Natchez College, and
Knoxville College). A sixth school, Hinds Community College-Utica Campus
had reported itself as part of the main campus by the time we conducted
our analysis of IPEDS.
2When we analyzed IPEDS, we limited our work to the 29 Tribal Colleges
eligible for the federal student aid programs. For our survey instrument,
we received a list of 32 Tribal Colleges from Education. Three of the
schools were not eligible for the federal student aid program in 2000-01
(Si Tanka College; White Earth Tribal and Community College, and Medicine
Creek Tribal College).
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
To determine what factors account for any differences in usage of distance
education between Minority Serving Institutions and non-Minority Serving
Institutions, we developed statistics from NPSAS on the characteristics of
students enrolled in distance education and those that were not. We
conducted logistic regression-a type of analysis that is designed to show
the influence of one or several variables on another variable to see
whether student characteristics, such as age and income influenced their
involvement in distance education at Minority Serving Institutions. We
also used the results from our survey to see if different characteristics
of Minority Serving Institutions, such as their size, location in rural or
urban areas, and type of funding sources, such as whether the school was
public or private nonprofit, had any bearing on whether the school offered
distance education. Additionally, we used the results of our survey to see
whether institutional strategies for teaching students may have had any
effect on whether schools offered distance education.
To determine what factors Minority Serving Institutions consider when
deciding whether to offer distance education, we used the results from our
survey. To determine what steps Education could take, if any, to improve
its monitoring of the results of their Title III (part A) and (part B) and
Title V (part A) programs as it relates to improvements in technology,
including distance education, we also used the results from our survey.
Additionally, we reviewed the statutes that created programs for
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving
Institutions, and Tribal Colleges. We interviewed managers of these
programs and obtained and reviewed documents related to Education's
performance measures and goals.
To develop our survey instruments, we interviewed officials at
organizations that represent Minority Serving Institutions, including the
United Negro College Fund, the National Association for Equal Opportunity
in Higher Education, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and
Universities, and the American Indian Higher Education Consortium. We
developed and pretested our questionnaire during visits to 6 Historically
Black Colleges and Universities-Morgan State University in Baltimore,
Maryland; Howard University in the District of Columbia; Johnson C. Smith
University in Charlotte, North Carolina; Xavier University in New Orleans,
Louisiana; Wiley College in Marshall, Texas; and Texas College in Tyler,
Texas. Also, we developed and pretested our survey at 5 Hispanic Serving
Institutions-San Antonio Community College in San Antonio, Texas;
University of the Incarnate Word in San Antonio, Texas; Rio Hondo College
in Whittier, California; East Los Angeles College in Monterrey Park,
California; and National Hispanic University in San Jose, California.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
We also developed and pretested our survey at 4 Tribal Colleges- Northwest
Indian College in Bellingham, Washington; Dine College in Tsaile, Arizona;
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and
D-Q University in Davis, California. In addition, to obtain additional
information based on the results provided by Minority Serving
Institutions, we visited and interviewed officials at Delaware State
University in Dover, Delaware; Gavilan College in Gilroy, California; and
Salish-Kootenai College in Pablo, Montana. To obtain additional
information on how non-Minority Serving Institutions fund their distance
education programs, we visited Cabrillo College in Aptos, California;
Montana Tech in Butte, Montana; and the University of Delaware in Newark,
Delaware.
Finally, we reviewed studies on the history and use of technology at
Minority Serving Institutions. The studies included Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (An Assessment of Networking and Connectivity),
Department of Commerce, October 2000; Historically Black Public Colleges
and Universities: An Assessment of Current Information Technology Usage,
Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund, October 2000; Latinos and Information
Technology-The Promise and the Challenge, The Tomas Rivera Policy
Institute, February 2002; Tribal Colleges: An Introduction, American
Indian Higher Education Consortium, February 1999; and The Power of the
Internet for Learning: Moving From Promise to Practice, Report of the
Web-Based Education Commission to the President and the Congress of the
United States, December 2000.
We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards between October 2002 and September 2003.
Appendix II: Historically Black Colleges and Universities
In most ways, Historically Black Colleges and Universities provide the
same educational opportunities found at other schools. The Department of
Education reported that there were 102 Historically Black Colleges and
Universities in 20 states as well as the District of Columbia, and one in
the Virgin Islands that were participating in federal student aid programs
in the 2000-01 school year. Historically Black Colleges and Universities
offer a variety of degrees-from associates to doctoral. They are comprised
of technical colleges, community colleges, public colleges, private
colleges, and both religious and nonsectarian schools. They range in size
from large (12,000 students at Florida A&M) to small (under 100 students
at Clinton Junior College and Texas College). In other ways, there are
distinctions to be made between Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and other schools. The clearest distinctions are in the
students they serve, and in the histories and missions of the
institutions.
History
The 102 institutions recognized as Historically Black Colleges and
Universities were established at various times in the nation's history in
response to historical circumstances that limited educational
opportunities for Black students. The earliest of the Historically Black
Colleges and Universities precede the Civil War when abolitionists from
the North founded formal institutions of higher learning for Black
Americans. This first wave of establishing Historically Black Colleges and
Universities began in 1837, when Richard Humphreys, a Quaker
philanthropist, founded Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, with the
purpose of educating free Blacks and emancipated slaves. Other pre-Civil
War Historically Black Colleges and Universities that were founded to
educate freed slaves include Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, founded
in 1854; Wilberforce University in Ohio, founded in 1856; and Harris-Stowe
State College in Missouri, founded in 1857.
The second wave of creating Historically Black Colleges and Universities
began after the Civil War. More than four million slaves and free Blacks
were illiterate at the time of emancipation in 1865. Between 1870 and
1890, 13 public colleges were established, including Virginia State
University in Virginia and Claflin College in South Carolina. The founding
of private schools, however, represented the largest portion of the second
wave of school creation. Between 1865 and 1890, 37 privately supported
Black colleges were created. Schools such as these were founded and funded
by missionary philanthropists who supported education for Black Americans
as a way to bring about racial equality. Included in this group are
schools such as Morehouse College in Georgia and Stillman College in
Alabama.
Appendix II: Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Federal support for Black institutions of higher education grew in the
late 1800s. This support resulted, in part, from the passage of the
Morrill Act of 1890-which prompted the third wave of creating Historically
Black Colleges and Universities in this country. Under the Morrill Act of
1890,1 the Congress made available land grants for the establishment of
institutions of higher education under the condition that land-grant
schools could not discriminate in their admissions policies based on race.
States that did not want to create integrated institutions could use the
grants to create racially segregated schools, provided that the funding
was divided equitably between the institutions. Land-grant colleges and
universities were required to teach practical industrial subjects, such as
agriculture and mechanical arts. The Morrill Act of 1890 helped to fund 20
of today's Historically Black Colleges and Universities, including Alcorn
State University in Mississippi, Florida A&M University, and Tuskegee
University in Alabama.
The Higher Education Act was originally passed in 1965. Title III of this
act provides financial assistance to institutions of higher education with
low per-student expenditures, large numbers of financially disadvantaged
students, or a large proportion of minority students. Title III, part B of
the act provides grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities
that are determined by the Secretary of Education to meet the statutory
definition of such institutions.2 The purpose of Title III, part B is to
provide financial assistance to establish or strengthen the physical
plants, financial management, academic resources, and endowments of
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Total funding under Title
III, part B for Historically Black Colleges and Universities has increased
from $136 million, funding 98 institutions in fiscal year 1999, to $206
million, funding 99 institutions in fiscal year 2002, or an increase of
about 51 percent. Additionally, funding for graduate program opportunities
at
1During the Civil War, in 1862, the Congress passed the First Morrill Act,
which provided funding in the form of land grants to states for founding
institutions of higher education. Land-grant colleges were intended to
educate students in agriculture and the mechanical arts.
2The definition of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, found at
20 U.S.C. 1061(2) is threefold. First, Historically Black Colleges and
Universities had to be established before 1964. Second, the institution's
principal mission had to be then, as now, the education of Black
Americans. Third, the institution must be accredited by a nationally
recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary
of Education to be a reliable authority as to the quality of training
offered, or is, according to such an agency or association, making
reasonable progress toward accreditation.
Appendix II: Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Historically Black Colleges and Universities has increased 50 percent from
$30 million in fiscal year 1999 to $49 million in fiscal year 2002.
Characteristics of Historically Black Colleges and Universities
In the 2000-01 school year, there were 102 Historically Black Colleges and
Universities eligible for the federal student aid programs. These schools
were located in 20 states-primarily in the Southern and Eastern portion of
the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. Our
analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that while Historically Black Colleges
and Universities were only 2 percent of all public and nonprofit
postsecondary institutions, in the fall of 2000 they enrolled 14 percent
(223,359) of Black non-Hispanic students in the United States.3 The
percent of Black non-Hispanic students at a Historically Black College or
University in the fall of 2000 ranged from 100 percent at 5 institutions
(Clinton Junior College and Morris College in South Carolina, Johnson C.
Smith University in North Carolina, Tougaloo in Mississippi, and Miles
College in Alabama) to 10 percent at Bluefield State College in West
Virginia, with an average of 85 percent. In comparison, non-Historically
Black Colleges and Universities averaged around 10 percent Black students
in the fall of 2000.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities offer a range of degrees from
different types of institutions. Degrees offered in 2000-01 included
associate, bachelor, master, first professional, and doctoral.
Eighty-seven percent offered a bachelor's degree or higher. Of the 102
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, about half were private
nonprofit institutions, and about half were public institutions. There are
no private for-profit Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Additionally, there are single gender schools, such as Spelman College in
Atlanta, Georgia-a women's college-and one Catholic Historically Black
University-Xavier University in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities are generally smaller in
size, have lower tuitions, and smaller endowments than postsecondary
institutions overall.4 The average postsecondary institution is 1.4 times
3The calculations in this section are based on data for the 2000-01 school
year. This was the most current complete dataset available. This section
excludes institutions not eligible for the federal student aid programs
and for-profit institutions. The for-profit institutions are excluded
because there are no for-profit Historically Black Colleges and
Universities.
4Postsecondary institutions refer to all public and private nonprofit
schools eligible for the federal student aid programs.
Appendix II: Historically Black Colleges and Universities
larger than the average Historically Black College or University. While 83
percent of Historically Black Colleges and Universities had 5,000 students
or fewer, the same is true of only 78 percent of other institutions. The
largest Historically Black University in the fall of 2000 was Florida A&M
with 12,126 students, compared to the largest non-Historically Black
University, which was the University of Texas at Austin with 50,000
students.
Two important sources of revenue for postsecondary institutions-tuition
and endowments-were both lower at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities than at other institutions. The average in-state,
undergraduate tuition at public Historically Black Colleges and
Universities was $1,993 in the 2000-01 school year. For private
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, the average undergraduate
tuition was $7,009. These same statistics for other institutions were
$2,067, and $11,480, respectively. The average market value of
institutional endowments for public schools at the end of the 2000-01
school year was about $5 million for Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, but over $51 million for other public institutions.
Endowment data on private nonprofit schools are not available in IPEDS.
Characteristics of Students at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities
Demographic characteristics of students at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities vary somewhat from national averages for postsecondary
students. According to data from the Department of Education's 1999-2000
NPSAS, the average undergraduate student at a Historically Black College
or University was younger than the national average of undergraduate
students (24.8 years old versus 26.4 years old). Undergraduates at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities were also more likely to be
single, dependent, and full-time students when compared to the national
average. Eleven percent of students at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities were married compared to 23 percent of students overall, and
42 percent of students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities
were independent, compared to 49 percent of students overall. Seventy-five
percent of students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities were
full-time students compared to 52 percent overall.
Economic Characteristics Although tuition is generally lower at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, students who attend these
schools are generally able to contribute less to the cost of their
education than are students at non-Minority Serving Institutions. Median
household family incomes are considerably lower for Black Americans than
they are for households
Appendix II: Historically Black Colleges and Universities
overall. This is reflected in one measure of a family's ability to pay for
college-the Expected Family Contribution.5 The Expected Family
Contribution was lower in 2000-01 for families of students at Historically
Black Colleges and Universities than it was for families of students
attending other, non-Minority Serving Institutions. In the 2000-01 school
year, the average Expected Family Contribution for students attending
public non-Minority Serving Institutions was $659, while it was only $480
for families of students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Additionally, the percentage of students receiving Pell Grants-financial
aid that is available to the neediest students in the nation-at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities was 51 percent, compared to
24 percent of students at non-Minority Serving Institutions.
Both students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and their
parents have lower income levels than students and parents at other
institutions. In 1998, the average yearly income of independent students
at Historically Black Colleges and Universities was $24,508, while it was
$35,643 for independent students at non-Historically Black Colleges and
Universities. Also in 1998, the average yearly income of parents of
dependent, undergraduate students was 1.3 times higher for
non-Historically Black College and University parents-$48,311 for
Historically Black College and University parents, and $65,037 for
non-Historically Black College and University parents.
5Expected Family Contribution is a formula that considers family income;
accumulated savings; the amount of taxes paid; family size; the number of
children simultaneously enrolled in college; the age of the older parent
and how close they may be to retirement; and the student's own financial
resources. See 20 U.S.C. S: 1087nn.
Appendix III: Hispanic Serving Institutions
As part of the 1992 Amendments to the Higher Education Act, the Congress
stipulated that Hispanic Serving Institutions were deserving of grant
funds to address educational needs of Hispanic students. Education
reported that in the 2000-01 school year, there were 334 institutions
eligible for federal student aid programs that were located in 14 states
and Puerto Rico that qualified as Hispanic Serving Institutions, including
the University of Miami and the University of New Mexico. Degrees offered
from Hispanic Serving Institutions include associate, bachelor, master,
professional, and doctoral. In the fall of 2000, the largest Hispanic
Serving Institution had 46,834 students and the smallest had 58 students.
History
The creation of Hispanic Serving Institutions has resulted from a growing
Hispanic population, and attempts to move this population more fully into
the U.S. educational system.1 Recent immigration to the United States has
grown since the mid-1940s, with an increasing percentage of these
immigrants coming from Latin America. The combination of high rates of
immigration with high fertility rates among the Hispanic population has
resulted in its being the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population
and the largest minority group. At the same time, however, Hispanics have
the highest high school drop out rate of any group in the country, and
lower college enrollment and completion rates than both blacks and whites.
In 1992, the Congress added a new section to the Higher Education Act of
1965 authorizing a grant program for Hispanic Serving Institutions.2 An
institution is considered a Hispanic Serving Institution if its enrolled
undergraduate full-time equivalent student population is at least 25
percent Hispanic and not less than 50 percent of the institution's
Hispanic students are low-income individuals. The purpose of the grants is
to expand educational opportunities for, and improve the academic
attainment of, Hispanic students; and expand and enhance the academic
offerings, program quality, and instructional stability of colleges and
universities that are educating the majority of Hispanic college students
and helping large numbers of Hispanic students and other low-income
1People of Hispanic origin were those who indicated that their origin was
Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or some other
Hispanic origin. Hispanics may be of any race.
2Pub. L. No. 102-325 S: 302(d) (1992).
Appendix III: Hispanic Serving Institutions
individuals complete postsecondary degrees. In 1995, the first grantees3-
37 schools for a 5-year period-were funded after $12 million was
appropriated for the program. In 1998, the Congress moved the provisions
authorizing grants to Hispanic Serving Institutions to Title V of the
Higher Education Act. In fiscal year 1999 the appropriation was raised to
$28 million. By 2002, 172 of the 334 Hispanic Serving Institutions
received $86.1 million in grant funds under Title V.
Characteristics of Hispanic Serving Institutions
In the 2000-01 school year, there were 334 Hispanic Serving Institutions
that were eligible for federal student aid programs located in 14 states
and Puerto Rico.4 Our analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that while
Hispanic Serving Institutions were only 5 percent of all postsecondary
institutions in the fall of 2000, they enrolled 48 percent (798,489) of
all Hispanic students.5 The percent of Hispanic students at a Hispanic
Serving Institution varied from 25 percent at ITT Technical Institute in
California to 100 percent at 60 institutions in Puerto Rico.
Hispanic Serving Institutions offer a range of degrees-associate,
bachelor, master, professional, and doctoral-from different types of
institutions. For 60 percent of the institutions, an associate's degree is
the highest degree offered, and the other 40 percent offered a bachelor's
degree or higher. Of the 334 Hispanic Serving Institutions, 45 percent
were public, 23 percent were private nonprofit, and 32 percent were
private for-profit institutions. Hispanic Serving Institutions are
generally larger in size than postsecondary institutions overall.6 The
average Hispanic Serving Institution in the fall of 2000 was more than two
times larger than the average postsecondary institution overall. The
largest Hispanic Serving Institution at that time was Miami Dade Community
College in Florida,
3Funds are awarded as 5-year grants, with a mandatory 2-year wait out
period before an institution can reapply.
4These 334 Hispanic Serving Institutions include branch campuses. For
example, there are 16 campuses of ITT Technical Institute that are counted
as separate Hispanic Serving Institutions.
5The calculations in this section are based on data for the 2000-01 school
year. This was the most current complete dataset available. The
calculations exclude institutions that were not eligible for federal
student aid programs.
6Postsecondary institutions overall refers to all institutions that were
eligible for federal student aid programs, including those that offer less
than an associate degree. All Hispanic Serving Institutions offer at least
an associate degree.
Appendix III: Hispanic Serving Institutions
with 46,834 students, while the largest non-Hispanic Serving Institution
was the University of Texas at Austin, with 50,000 students. In the fall
of 2000 there were 9 Hispanic Serving Institutions with more than 25,000
students.
Two important sources of revenue for postsecondary institutions-tuition
and endowments-were lower at public and private nonprofit Hispanic Serving
Institutions than at non-Hispanic Serving Institutions. The average
in-state undergraduate tuition at public Hispanic Serving Institutions was
$1,083 in the 2000-01 school year. For private nonprofit Hispanic Serving
Institutions, the average undergraduate tuition was $7,202, and for
private for-profit Hispanic Serving Institutions it was $8,830. These same
statistics for non-Hispanic Serving Institutions were $2,151, $11,542, and
$8,745, respectively. The average market value of institutional endowments
for public postsecondary institutions at the end of the 2000-01 school
year was about $15.3 million for Hispanic Serving Institutions, compared
to $52.1 million for non-Hispanic Serving Institutions. Endowment data on
private nonprofit schools are not available in IPEDS.
Characteristics of Hispanic Students at Hispanic Serving Institutions
Demographic characteristics of Hispanic students at Hispanic Serving
Institutions vary somewhat from national averages for all postsecondary
students.7 According to data from the 1999-2000 Department of Education's
National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, the average Hispanic
undergraduate student at a Hispanic Serving Institution was slightly
younger than the national average of undergraduate students (25.5 years
versus 26.4 years). Similar to the national average for undergraduates,
about half of Hispanic undergraduates at Hispanic Serving Institutions
were independent and about half were full-time students. Hispanic
undergraduate students at Hispanic Serving Institutions were more likely
to work full-time when compared to undergraduate students overall-44
percent of Hispanic undergraduates at Hispanic Serving Institutions worked
full-time compared to 39.3 percent of students overall.
Economic Characteristics Although tuition is generally lower at Hispanic
Serving Institutions, students who attend Hispanic Serving Institutions
are generally able to
7Students at Hispanic Serving Institutions refers to both Hispanic and
non-Hispanic students, unless otherwise noted.
Appendix III: Hispanic Serving Institutions
contribute less to the cost of their education than are students from
non-Minority Serving Institutions; Median household family incomes are
considerably lower for families of Hispanic origin than they are for
white, non-Hispanics. This is reflected in one measure of a family's
ability to pay for college-the Expected Family Contribution.8 On average,
the Expected Family Contribution was lower in 2000-01 for families of
students at Hispanic Serving Institutions than it was for families of
students attending other, non-Minority Serving Institutions-$449 compared
to $659. Additionally, the percentage of students receiving Pell
Grants-financial aid that is available to the neediest students in the
nation-at Hispanic Serving Institutions was 31 percent, compared to 24
percent of students at non-Minority Serving Institutions.
Both students at Hispanic Serving Institutions and their parents have
lower income levels than other institutions. The average yearly income of
independent students at Hispanic Serving Institutions in 1998 was $28,921,
while it was $35,501 for independent students overall. For Hispanic
students attending Hispanic Serving Institutions, the average income is
even lower, at $26,193. The average yearly income of the parents of
dependent, undergraduate students in 1998 was 1.5 times higher for
non-Hispanic Serving Institution parents-$43,675 for Hispanic Serving
Institution parents, and $67,034 for non-Hispanic Serving Institution
parents.
8Expected Family Contribution is a formula that considers family income;
accumulated savings; the amount of taxes paid; family size; the number of
children simultaneously enrolled in college; the age of the older parent
and how close they may be to retirement; and the student's own financial
resources. See 20 U.S.C. S: 1087nn.
Appendix IV: Tribal Colleges
Tribal Colleges were founded to educate students both in Western models of
learning, as well as in traditional American Indian cultures and
languages. This dual mission of Tribal Colleges distinguishes them from
other colleges and universities. The Department of Education reported that
there were 29 Tribal Colleges in 12 states participating in federal
student aid programs in the 2000-01 school year.1 All of these colleges
offered associate degrees, 2 offered bachelor's degrees, and 2 offered
master's degrees. In the fall of 2000, the largest Tribal College had less
than 2,000 students.
History
The history of Tribal Colleges is rooted in the desire of tribes to have
greater control in the education of their members-called
selfdetermination-and in the desire to improve access to postsecondary
educational opportunities for American Indians. The Navajo tribe founded
the first Tribal College, Dine College (formerly Navajo Community
College), in 1968. By 1980, 20 Tribal Colleges, such as Blackfeet
Community College in Montana, Northwest Indian College in Washington, and
Sinte Gleska University in South Dakota, had been founded by various
tribes. Tribal Colleges were often modeled after community colleges and
shared community college philosophies of open admissions, job training,
and community development along with local control and dedication to local
needs.
For hundreds of years, the education system in the United States almost
always sought to assimilate American Indians into a cultural and
educational backdrop that was largely European. For example, in the
nineteenth century, boarding schools were created with the intent of
separating American Indian youth from their heritage and culture. However,
beginning about 1968, the federal government moved toward a policy of
tribal self-determination that included a greater set of tools and
resources so that tribes could better control their own educational
activities. For example, the Indian Self Determination and Education
Assistance Act2 was passed in 1975, and in part, called for "assuring
maximum Indian participation in the direction of educational as well as
other federal services to Indian communities."
1The Department of Education listed 3 other Tribal Colleges where students
were not eligible for the federal student financial aid programs.
2Pub. L. No. 93-638 (1975).
Appendix IV: Tribal Colleges
Concurrent to the self-determination movement, as the result of the GI
Bill3 of 1944 and the Higher Education Act of 1965, a college education
became more accessible to all Americans, including American Indians.
Tribes, including the Blackfeet, the Chippewa, and the Standing Rock Sioux
created colleges in response to the growing interest on the part of
American Indians in obtaining a college education.
While many Tribal Colleges offer degrees in areas of study frequently
found at other postsecondary institutions, such as accounting, education,
computer science, and nursing, they also offer courses and degrees unique
to their tribes or to Tribal Colleges. For example:
o DQ University in Davis, California, offers associate of arts degrees
in Native American fine arts, as well as in indigenous studies. They also
offer certificates in gaming administration and in Indian dispute
resolution.
o Dine College in Arizona offers associate degrees in Navajo culture,
history, and language, and Navajo bilingual/bicultural education.
o Oglala Lakota Community College in South Dakota has an associate of
arts degree in tribal management, as well as a bachelor of arts in Lakota
studies.
One source of federal support for Tribal Colleges is through the Higher
Education Act of 1965.4 Title III of the act provides financial assistance
to institutions of higher education with low per-student expenditures,
large numbers of financially disadvantaged students, or a large proportion
of minority students. Title III, part A provides grants to American Indian
Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, as defined by federal
statute.5 The purpose of Title III, part A is to assist eligible
institutions to become self-sufficient by providing funds to improve and
strengthen their academic quality, institutional management, and fiscal
stability. In fiscal
3Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, ch. 268, 58 Stat. 284.
4Other sources of federal aid for Tribal Colleges include the Tribally
Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978, Land Grant
Funding, and the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
525 U.S.C. 1801(a)(4). The definition of a tribally controlled college or
university is an institution of higher education, which is formally
controlled, or has been formally sanctioned, or chartered, by the
governing body of an Indian tribe or tribes, except that no more than one
such institution shall be recognized with respect to any such tribe.
Appendix IV: Tribal Colleges
year 1999, 8 Tribal Colleges received a total of $3 million under Title
III, part A. By fiscal year 2002, 27 Tribal Colleges received $17.5
million.
Characteristics of Tribal Colleges
In the 2000-01 school year, there were 29 Tribal Colleges6 located in 12
states that were eligible for federal student aid programs. Our analysis
of the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that while Tribal Colleges were less than 1
percent of all public and not-for-profit postsecondary institutions, they
enrolled 8 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students in the United
States, serving 11,262 students.7 The percentage of American Indian/Alaska
Native students in the student body at Tribal Colleges averaged 85 percent
in fall 2000 and ranged from 100 percent (at Crownpoint Institute of
Technology in New Mexico, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in New
Mexico, Institute of American Indian Arts in New Mexico, Haskell Indian
Nations University in Kansas, and Stone Child College in Montana) to 21
percent (at Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College in Minnesota). In
comparison, other U.S. colleges and universities8 averaged around 1
percent American Indian students in fall 2000.
Tribal Colleges are typically community colleges, and therefore, offered
less variety in the types of degrees offered, as well as the type of
institution compared to other U.S. colleges and universities. In addition,
they were much smaller on average than other U.S. colleges and
universities. While there were 2 Tribal Colleges whose highest degree
offered was a master's degree in 2000-01 (Oglala Lakota College and Sinte
Gleska College) and 2 whose highest degree offered was a bachelor's degree
(Haskell Indian Nations University and Salish Kootenai College), 25, or 86
percent, reported an associate degree as their highest degree offered. All
29 of the Tribal Colleges received funding from the federal government.
There were no private for-profit Tribal Colleges. The average U.S. college
or university was eight times larger than the average Tribal College. The
largest Tribal College, Dine College in Arizona, enrolled 1,712 students
in the fall of 2000. In comparison, the University of Texas at
6In 2002, the number increased by 3 to 32.
7The calculations in this section are based on data for the 2000-01 school
year. This was the most current complete dataset available. These
calculations exclude institutions that were not eligible for federal
student aid programs and for-profit institutions. The for-profit
institutions are excluded because there are no for-profit Tribal Colleges.
8References to "other U.S. colleges and universities" includes
institutions located in U.S. territories, both public and private
nonprofit.
Appendix IV: Tribal Colleges
Austin was the largest university in the nation, with an enrollment of
almost 50,000 students.
Two important revenue sources for postsecondary institutions-tuition and
endowments-were both lower at Tribal Colleges than at other U.S. colleges
and universities. The average in-state, undergraduate tuition at Tribal
Colleges was $2,017 in the 2000-01 school year.9 The average in-state,
undergraduate tuition at non-Tribal public colleges was $2,132 for the
same year. The average market value of institutional endowments for public
schools at the end of their 1999-2000 fiscal year was over $57 million for
those non-Tribal Colleges that reported having endowments, but under $1.8
million for the 15 Tribal Colleges that reported having endowments.
Endowment data on private nonprofit schools are not available in IPEDS.
Characteristics of Students Attending Tribal Colleges
The database used to generate characteristics of students at Historically
Black Colleges and Universities and at Hispanic Serving Institutions-
NPSAS-only contained information on 1 Tribal College. As a result, we were
unable to compile data on characteristics of students attending Tribal
Colleges. A report issued by the American Indian Higher Education
Consortium, however, provides such information. According to the 1999
report, the typical Tribal College student was a single mother in her
early 30s. According to the same report, in the fall of 1996, 64 percent
of Tribal College undergraduates were women, as compared to 56 percent of
undergraduates at all public institutions. The report cites the average
age of Tribal College students in 1997 as 31.5 years old, while NPSAS data
from 2000 shows the average age of undergraduate students overall to be
26.4 years old. The consortium also stated that half of all Tribal College
students attended school on a part-time basis, which is a similar rate to
undergraduate students overall.
Economic Characteristics Although tuition is lower, students who attend
Tribal Colleges are generally able to contribute less to the cost of their
education than are students at non-Minority Serving Institutions. Median
household family incomes are considerably lower on Indian reservations
than they are in the rest of the country. This is reflected in one measure
of a family's ability to
9This figure is based on 22 Tribal Colleges who reported tuition charges.
Appendix IV: Tribal Colleges
pay for college-the Expected Family Contribution.10 The Expected Family
Contribution was lower in 2000-01 for families of Tribal College students
than it was for families of students attending other, non-Minority Serving
Institutions. In the 2000-01 school year, the average Expected Family
Contribution for students attending public non-Minority Serving
Institutions was $659, while it was only $259 for Tribal College students.
Additionally, the percentage of students receiving Pell Grants-financial
aid made available to the neediest students in the nation-at Tribal
Colleges was 60 percent, compared to 24 percent of students at
non-Minority Serving Institutions. Again, because NPSAS data are not
available for Tribal Colleges, we were unable to compile further
information on the economic status of students and their parents.
10Expected Family Contribution is a formula that considers family income;
accumulated savings; the amount of taxes paid; family size; the number of
children simultaneously enrolled in college; the age of the older parent
and how close they may be to retirement; and the student's own financial
resources. It is defined in the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended,
20 U.S.C. S: 1087nn.
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Contacts
Staff Acknowledgments
(130202)
Kelsey Bright, Assistant Director (202) 512-9037 Neil Asaba,
Analyst-in-Charge (206) 287-4774
In addition to those named above, Jerry Aiken, Susan Baker, Jessica
Botsford, Julian Fogle, Chris Hatscher, Joel Grossman, Cathy Hurley, John
Mingus, Jill Peterson, Doug Sloane, Stan Stenersen, and Susan Zimmerman
made important contributions to this report.
GAO's Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***