The World Has Changed, So Why Not Higher Education?

I have been searching for a venue where I could discuss the value of the US Department of Education. I don’t know if this is the right place but here goes. Diane has opened the door and I will enter.

I, like Diane, favor online learning. Forty years go when I was in college, we didn’t have it. I have to think I would have benefited from it if had been available. It wasn’t and I did not. However my grandchildren might. I also recognize that our education system is crumbling and we need an infusion of new thinking and new leadership. Teachers have always tried to find ways of engaging students so computerization should be welcome, or so I think. Secretary Duncan represents new leadership but the system still struggles with constipation in the idea department. Unions do not like the online idea I suppose because membership is afraid of loosing ground to a machine. I don’t think they have quite sunk to the Luddite level but I think that is the direction the conversation is going.

This brings me to one inescapable conclusion. States who wish to experiment with new ideas such as these must be free to do so and I thi8nk the power to make those calls should lie with the states not the Federal government. In fact, I wonder what value the Department of Education has. Are they an encumbrance? Certainly if the states had the seventy billion dollars the Feds spend on that agency, a lot could be done to repair crumbling and unsafe schools and meet many of their other priorities. I think it is time to discuss this seriously.

Question: Who are the biggest purveyors of online higher ed?
Answer: The for-profits for whom 97% of their income comes from federally guaranteed student loans.
Question: Who does Diane work for?
Answer: Those same for-profits.

As Bill Gleason has pointed out on his Brainstorm blog, higher ed is more than just classroom teaching. And while Diane can throw anecdotes out there ’til the cows come home, there still isn’t solid evidence that online learning is as good or better than in-classroom. Not to mention the fact that there is already a considerable amount of online learning happening – often in combination with in-class instruction.

But really what this posting is about is pushing the notion that the only real consideration in higher ed should be the cost/benefit ration. As in how can we either make this cheaper or generate more profit. The for-profits wouldn’t be half as big as they are now without the student loan loopholes that were created by the Bush administration. And the fact that they continue to exist solely because of the largess of that same industry – and the guarantees from the feds – kind of destroys that whole “free market” idea. Since if they were really operating in a free market, thsy wouldn’t have access to those kinds of student loans.

You can’t talk about the benefits of the free market, smaller govt., and lower taxes, and continue to suck at the teat of the federal govt.

Hmm…

I am pretty much against “on line learning” at least as outlined by Dr. Auer Jones. I think technology has its place, have taught a lecture course by television, used computers for teaching since 1976, and have received awards for technology based learning.

However, I bow to my superior opponent of on-line learning, Professor Margaret Soltan, an English prof at GWU, and a crusader against on line education.

On her marvelous blog, University Diaries, she has dubbed on line learning poor white trash.

Link: http://www.margaretsoltan.com/?cat=74

Bon Appetit!

I think Professor Soltan is being both ironic and sarcastic in tagging online education as poor white trash.

She knows words. Have a look at the cited posts.

I am sure her use of the term did not come from a misunderstanding of the disadvantaged position of many of those subjected to online learning.

Bill Gleason

All formats of education have their place, but I’m always suspicious that when those representing the for-profit sector sing the praises of online learning, it’s simply because that’s how most of them make their money. If Ms. Jones is going to bring up students nodding off or texting their friends in bricks-and-mortar classrooms, why does she not also mention the fact that the person who is sitting at the computer for an online class isn’t guaranteed to actually be the student who is enrolled and will receive credit for completing the requirements?

Follow the money. Republicans love for-profit schools not because of their innovation or the quality of their education or their accessibility or any of those nice things, they love them because of their loyal campaign contributions. The same party that has often advocated abolishing the Dept of Education because the Federal gov’t supposedly has no place in education is glad to use taxpayer dollars to prop up mega-corporations such as for-profit schools or student loan lenders.

Far from being poor white trash, online learners are the employed professionals of today, earning new credentials to move up the job ladder and advance in their profession. Maybe a prof of English looks down her nose at online learning, but that’s not unusual for someone who has made up their mind that something won’t work. when you’re convinced of that, it’s a safe bet that it won’t – even when academics all around you are finding ways to make it work and extend high-quality learning to people who could never access it otherwise.

Shame. Luddites are everywhere, while those who keep open minds simply go around them and find new ways to extend education to millions.

And the first thing Mr. Obama should do is cancel the new federal laws which will require higher ed to register and be approved in all other states where it offers classes. It’s a complete waste of time and energy, and it will regulate nothing. It’s a 1911 approach to a 2011 situation, outdated before it begins.

If I am correct and states are better at defining, implementing monitoring than DC, why should we do we need DC at all? What value do they provide?

jlf9999 – first the Dept of Ed., now the entire federal government?

You talk about block grants, but where are those grants coming from? Who’s going to manage that money? And this “I think states can run their institutions and school best and probably cheaper with block grants and still safeguard disadvantaged kids.” completely ignores the history of segregated schools. There’s a reason why there are federal protections (and mechanisms to enforce those protections) because states have a history of doing what they think is best for “their” situation. Not sure where you are geographically, but to use the example of Arizona or California, to see what’s happened with bilingual ed., is one argument *against* local control.

And what does this have to do with online ed? Oh, that’s right, you just wanted to talk about what *you* think is important. Namely the destruction of the Dept. of Ed.

p.s., regional bodies have tried what your suggesting. There isn’t really a good track record of those bodies actually doing anything better.

books4jocks. There is no “One size fits all” approach and I have not heard anyone saying there is. But we do not make good policy when we do so with the exceptions in mind. Exceptions are handled separately. Face it my friend. This a union thing. It is not about students. Unions exist for one reason and that is to perpetuate jobs. When they claim to represent kids I shake my head and wonder if anyone really believes that stuff. I can give you examples where unions worked against kids in favor of teachers and so all day long starting in New Jersey. Lets keep the discussion about kids and students and what is best for them.

The major benefit of a college education is not what is taught in a lecture in a classrooms but what is taught outside the classroom. People learn human interaction skills both in extra curricular activities and through group projects.

Online training (education is too strong a word for what happens online) may be good at teaching pure technical skills but the more important skill of human interaction and oral debate is completely missing from online training.

jlf9999 – this is a union thing? Really? She’s talking about Obama not giving enough kudos to online learning in his SOTU.

Sorry, I forgot who I’m talking to. Every problem in K-16 education can be traced back to unions. Because unions hate kids, right? Especially those teachers unions.

And your right, unions do exist to preserve jobs. That’s their job. That’s why they exist. They exist to maintenance the contract – which by the way was signed by management as well, so it can’t be ALL the union’s fault, can it? Are there bad unions? Of course there are, just like there are bad doctors, bad lawyers, and bad CEOs. Unions often balk at certain reform initiatives because they would violate the contract. Which is what I’d want my union to do. Of course, there are plenty of examples of places where unions and districts have worked together to make things happen. Things get screwed up when districts try to do things on their own – see Michelle Rhee.

So it’s unions that are keeping online learning from happening? I’d like to see some evidence to support that contention.

marktropolis – Mark please stop with the personal jabs. They are so unnecessary. Please tell me what you do for a living so I can relate a little better. I am retired from government service.

jfl999,

“But we are different people than our parents and grandparents. And there is scant evidence that what you say is true. Also, your argument postulates that new ways of things will be worse while providing no proof. That is pretty grim and runs up against the proof that we have in the past overcome difficulties with new ideas and our society has moved ahead.”

I always get a little chapped when I hear the remnants of “this time its different” chorus that loudly chortles let there be freedom, open markets and choice as if our past history of deregulation and privatization were not a middle class suppository. It is not enough to utter that we are different from previous generations platitudes and then proceed to offer market based solutions.

Second, we do not need to offer proof of the future problems when we are present watching how old problems have been handled. Forgive my petulance, but grim is less about what will work in the future and more related to the notion tied to economic progress comes from technological solution to learning when there is a dearth of human solutions already.

This is the major problem with changing institutional directives mid-stream (if we had convinced our population two decades ago that the New Deal was going to bankrupt us long term and provided for a transition for all the families this would affect, then maybe you would have some buy in. But as it is, we had decades of huge spending by all systemic levels, the sanctioning of fraudulent financial practices and an American economy bound for a train wreck at those people with most power were focused on short term profits versus long term sustainability in most professions. Those who would challenge the grand OZ were fired or marginalized and those who absorbed and furthered the call got promoted…. It is not difficult to see if you try, but it requires looking for simplistic solutions to complex questions.

Online learning? I can hardly imagine a physicist, a chemist, or a surgeon taught in such a way. It is quite obvious that many disciplines requiring development of considerable skills or a particular way of thinking are impossible to master without extensive personal contact. If it is mostly blah-blah-blah subjects, as described by Ed Dante in his “Shadow Scholar” opus, then of course anything would fly, but then who cares anyway.

Most of my college experience has been face to face and at state universities. But while teaching at state university, I decided I wanted my K-12 teaching certificate. I enrolled in a hybrid program where some of the classes were fully online and others had some meetings. this program was at a state university. In evaluating the program as a student and as a college teacher, I thought it was a great learning experience. I learned not only about the topic of study, but I also leared how to make the classes that I teach online better learning experiences for my students. I feel it was a good learning experience for the self motivated – but as someone else said – that is true for traditional classrooms as well. One of the problems in face to face teaching is that many of my students want to be “taught”. In online classrooms. the focus was definitely on learning! Good online learning is valuable in many areas. But, there are some areas where “lab” work or face to face contact will always supplement an online experience.

There is ample published evidence that shows online learning is as effective, or more effective, than face to face. For example, the 5-year study in which students enrolling in the same course, some online and some face to face, were assessed before and after the course; the online students actually learned significantly more.

But why all this absolutist talk — it doesn’t need to be all or nothing. That just seems to be the refrain of fear of those not experienced in online education. Many universities very effectively integrate a selection of courses that are online with courses that are not. Taking 1 or 2 online classes for every 3-4 face to face ones does not deprive a student of in-person interactions with peers and professors, or prevent them from getting hands-on lab or studio experiences. It just gives them more options, to help them work around jobs, sports, and course scheduling difficulties.

Great read, thank you. I have taken many online classes — my first graduate course in the Public Administration program was online. I walked away from that course with a head full of knowledge, a better note-taker, a better reader, and was more interested in what others thought and had to say (and ultimately I had more complete opinions and responses to others’ thoughts both online and face-to-face).

I’m a huge believer in online learning. Any entrepreneur would agree with the notion that “When the world changes, I change my business.” Or at least they should. The world is changing, and much of it wants to learn online.

I’m no expert – I haven’t researched the good, the bad, and the ugly of online learning. One observation from my own experience though — in an online class, I typically haven’t gotten that “thrill” that I get while in a traditional class sitting under a GREAT professor. These great professors analyze, provide insight, give analogies the student might never had realized, and will often digress, but those are the moments that really stretch my mind in another direction. A good professor provides a number of those little golden nuances that often are not experienced online.

Its just less intimate, but that pretty well sums up the “millennial” generation. In the end, it must be embraced by higher education and government … at least until something new comes along.

Imo, the distinction between online learning and brick-and-mortar learning is like that between oils and acrylics.

In some cases, for certain applications, only the one will do. In other situations, the other might be better. Sometimes there’s not much to choose between the two; sometimes the difference is absolutely crucial.

Each has certain advantages and certain drawbacks. Neither is right for everything. Neither is wrong for everything.

Pretending that “the way I learned” is relevant to anything in particular other than one’s personal history is no solution.

There are two things people can’t stand: the way things are and change.

having quoted I realized it should have been “what are”..

@physicsprof – Physics education has been slower than some education domains to adopt online education, although I understand that quite a bit has been done in HS physics education. You may be more familiar with those initiatives than I. Considerable evidence exists with respect to the more general issues, such as “How does online education compare with traditional face-to-face education in terms of learning outcomes?” and “Other things being equal, is one platform more efficient than the other?” The most researched question is that of comparability of outcomes. It is claimed that there are more than 1,000 scientific studies on this question. Two years ago, I reviewed nearly 300 of them (mostly just reading abstracts and reading studies in a few cases where the abstract led me further). My sense was that perhaps 30% of those studies were methodologically sound and gathered enough data to be interesting. The Department of Education did the same thing, only more thoroughly in 2008-09. Their goal was to conduct a meta-analysis on the data. Thus they were looking for studies that were not only methodologically sound but contained the variance terms necessary for the meta-analysis. You can look at that report here. http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf The findings are often quoted but the study itself is interesting.

The component of online learning that I find understated and under-researched is the affective dimension. I taught my first online course in the late 1980′s. The biggest surprise was the high level of affective involvement between the students and me and, especially, among students. Strong bonds were formed that were not typical to the physical classroom. Students helped each other a great deal, to the benefit of their collective learning and enjoyment. Additionally, shy individuals found their voice. I do find it is more difficult to teach an online course well. Many professors don’t have the knowledge or take the time and students suffer. You have to learn how teach effectively in this medium and the platform needs to support effective pedagogy.

Thank you, betterschools. It does not come as a surprise that fields that mostly require transfer of information are susceptible to online learning. Still, other disciplines that are based on acquiring new skills or exotic khow how might be out of reach for it even if the technology further progresses.

Re julia_ks:

I’m on a 15-minute furlough as a compensated spokesperson for Murray’s Discount University, so I can temporarily say what I really think, which is this:

All the bloggers on “Brainstorm” have their own vested interests, but they’re pretty broadly vested, e.g., most of them being professors in non-profit higher ed who favor non-profit higher ed. Kevin Carey works for a think-tank full of consultants and favors higher ed calling in a lot of consultants. Sometimes the potential, concrete conflicts-of-interest there get a little close, but there’s always a little distance between what the bloggers pay and writing advertising copy for their employers to make it tolerable.

The case of Diane Auer Jones is now, however, different. The Washington Campus was one thing, but being “vice president for external and regulatory affairs for the Career Education Corporation” is quite another. Ms. Auer Jones is the official, salaried head PR person, spokesperson, and lobbyist for a company that is, according to its own website, “one of the world’s leading on-ground providers of private, for-profit, postsecondary education and [has] a substantial presence in online education.” This post, “The World Has Changed, So Why Not Higher Education?”, is exactly the sort of thing that a PR chief would write (or have written and sign off on it) as part and parcel of the job. Ms. Auer Jones’s position with CEC and this post are too close for credibility.

Oops! My fifteen minutes are up. Gee, we at MDU wish we had somebody like Ms. Auer Jones so strategically placed on a blogsite like “Brainstorm.”

I disagree with ‘goxewu’ who seems to think that if you are alive, it is impossible to free yourself from your biases enough to make impartial judgments from behind Rawles (or Kant’s) veil of ignorance. I think you can be objective in this way, and that is what the discipline of higher education used to be about. Sigh.

Tiresomely repetitive sarcasm aside, I agree with ‘goxewu’ that Ms. Auer’s piece might be interpreted as self-interested. Only she knows and it is not my place to go to someone else’s motives. I took the piece at face value. To me, the interesting discussions here have to do with the convergence of (a) online education and (b) the fed’s attempt to gain control over it is ways that some of us find repugnant. And, ‘goxewu’ we find it repugnant not for reasons of self-interest but for reasons of principle. In contrast, the petty discussions here, go to Ms. Auer’s motives. They are uninspiring and add nothing to the dialog.

Entrepreneurial types can turn any new regulation into a business opportunity. I can see several related to this issue. So what? There are larger issues here for those who can see and care about them.

Murray’s Discount University (formerly The Don Rickles Academy of Insult Comedy and Bartending) offers a course in repetitive sarcasm. Actually, it’s an entire major: the student just takes the same course over and over again.

There are motives to question and then there are motives to question. When the author of a blog post on the wonderfulness of online education and the awfulness of the DOE (“Why, then, is your Department of Education doing everything in its power to make sure that technology can’t change the way we learn?”–which is a rather blunderbuss accusation) is not only the head flack for a for-profit educational conglomerate but its chief anti-regulation lobbyist as well, and when the post reads exactly like the kind of thing she gets paid by the conglomerate to produce, yes, one does raise an eyebrow.

And this old canard (a stake has been driven through its heart dozens of times since the inception of “Brainstorm,” but newbies keep trying to bring it back to life) about criticizing a post or a blogger via a pseudonym: 1) The likes of jlf9999 and 11272784 are pseudonymous, too; or is it just commenters with certain points of view who are “unethical”? 2) Ms. Auer Jones is a paid content provider, commenters are not; 3) pseudononymous comment is the mother’s milk of blogsites, and a readership/hits/advertising plus for a whole lot of online entities, from AOL to the NYT to the CHE. So let’s ditch the selective enforcement, shall we?

As for the comment finding the Fed’s trying to regulate for-profit postsecondary ed “repugnant not for reasons of self-interest but for reasons of principle”…well, if you believe, for instance, that the Wall Streeters who decry increased regulation in the aftermath of their mortgage-backed-securities debacle (I’d say swindle) are doing so “not for reasons of self-interest but for reasons of principle,” then there’s that proverbial bridge for sale. Same with spokespersons for postsecondary for-profits, only the money’s a little less.

Mountain Dew. The butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-my-mouth disingenuousness of some who post here!

The abstract of the metaanalysis (I admit that the body of the MA is, being out of my baliwick–I’m a mere retired humanities professor still doing guest gigs–a bit of a slog for me) says, “The meta-analysis found that, on average, students in online learning conditions performed modestly better than those receiving face-to-face instruction.” As they say on “Law & Order,” so stipulated. Technology is not the issue.

Most of the comments on this and other posts and discussion threads that decry Federal in higher education do so on behalf of for-profits. While there may be those whose objections arise from principle rather than vested interest, they’re a distinct minority, and even rare. It’d be a miracle if Ms. Auer Jones were one of them.

Note that two of the giants of for-profit postsecondary education, The University of Phoenix (trolling homeless shelters for enrollees) and Kaplan University (see the story in another part of the CHE) seem to be among the sleaziest operators. Murray’s Discount University is having a hard time keeping up.

Can you take Phys Ed online?

* Sure, I’ll take the tour and stand ready to modify my judgment. Put the term “Ptokemkin village” is in my lexicon.

* “…what you read in an article manipulated by a short-seller or someone’s unexamined hatred for the idea of a university managing itself to profit.” betterschools could use a little of his own ethical instruction. Just as not all UOP admissions people are padding their rollbooks with academically unqualified candidates who are conveniently, albeit marginally, qualified borrowers, not all critics of for-profit higher ed are conniving short-sellers or have an “unexamined hatred” (usually, it isn’t even “hatred”) for it.

* While online learning may be (but probably isn’t) the Gutenberg press to brick-and-mortar’s Gothic scribing, the relation of for-profit higher ed to non-profit higher ed isn’t remotely that. In the first place, for-profitness is hardly a marvelous new invention. And not-for-profitness is hardly an outmoded method headed for the dustbin. If so, goodbye unbiased research, for one thing.

* “If you want to be part of the future…” I may not, in the sense that betterschools means it. Seems to me there was somebody back in the 1920s who said, “I have been over into the future, and it works.” Hmmm.

* “…knowing how you have reasoned in the past…” This is both a weak swipe at my having pointed out that Ms. Auer Jone’s post is practically a work product of her job as a publicist and a lobbyist for for-profit postsecondary ed, and an admission that I had a point. If I hadn’t, betterschools wouldn’t think it necessary to point out that his hands are clean regarding UOP. Still, I wonder whether betterschools has, as he has advised me to do, spoken “with the senior professionals in the academic departments about their current initiatives.” If he has, would that constitute “relations of *any* kind” with UOP?

* But I’m gald that betterschools has tacitly conceded my points about Ms. Auer Jones’s vested interest and the use of pseudononymity in blog commets. It proves he’s, um, educable.

What is the point, do you suppose, of the author failing to identify herself as a former Bush administration Department official currently employed by a major for-profit institution and positing this as an issue of information technology Luddism without even mentioning for-profits?

“Most individuals involved in higher education leadership across the nation know each other well…Ms. Jones is a person of substantial recognition and professional achievement.”

Sophistry, thy name is betterschools.

Ms. Auer Jones is a paid lobbyist and PR spokesperson for for-profit postsecondary education, and that detracts from the credibility of whatever she has to say on the subject. (Think of those letters in The New York Times from the PR official at a foreign country’s U.S. embassy when that country is involved in a dispute. Or, the one today from the head of the American Petroleum Institute. One’s eyes roll.) And it’s not to Ms. Auer Jones’s credit, but the Chronicle’s, that her affiliation is made clearly known.

betterschools takes pains to say, in touting the University of Phoenix, “I have no relations of *any* kind with them.” Can Ms. Auer Jones say that about for-profit postsecondary ed?

Online coursework isn’t for everyone. Educators, administrators and legislators who mandate it are misguided. Research, including my own, has shown that not everyone learns the same way. Those self-motivated individuals with an affinity for technology are likely to do better than the student who’s only going to school because Mom and Dad told him to (and hates computers, to boot). People who learn better by listening are less likely to do well online than those who are more visually inclined.

Learning style, maturity and computer attitudes are predictors of the students’ likelihood of being successful in online courses and to ignore them is foolish and, possibly, harmful.

When our Mr. Single-Term president is back home after the next election, then we should talk higher education with a better, more intelligent, more productive, less “spend, spend, spend…” Republican P.O.T.U.S.
Until then, it’s all smoke and mirrors. Really. You liberals wanted this guy…you got him. Biggest deficit ever…and more bloated government with no results than ever.
Without passing the buck and without mentioning the words “Republican,” “conservative,” or phrases such as “Right-wing” or (for the nutty left-wingers that see a conspiracy in everything from 9/11 to how their shoe strings are tied) “Sarah Palin,” or anything referring to either the “last administration” or anything Republican: Let the chips fall where they should and let’s use a phrase borrowed (but altered) from President Reagan: Are you, or Higher Education, really better off than when Mr. Obama took the oath of office?
No. There is order in simplicity and you can’t blame Republicans or anyone else except the failed policy of a soon-to-be one term president that will have only Jimmy Carter as a person who “really” understands him. It’s the fault of everyone else, to liberal nuts…never a thought of personal responsibility or that more money does not equal better students. It’s not money. It’s motivation.
With a few exceptions, we need strong, conservative, Republican leadership now more than ever. “More government” is not good for the country.

“However, starting on July 1st of this year, when a student is enrolled in an online course, and she performs the equivalent of walking into class by logging into the electronic classroom portal, the Department of Education will not consider this to be an academically related activity. Well, is entering the classroom an academically related activity or isn’t it?”

“The problem is that now the Department of Education is requiring not only that faculty evaluate this work (as do we), but also that institutions save it in electronic archives so that Department of Education officials can look at it, upon request, at a later date. Now bureaucrats who have never taught a class in their life and are unqualified to do so will be making value judgements about what constitutes an academically related activity and what does not.”

Can someone enlighten me about where to find a description of these new regulations? Thanks much.

Yes, let’s get those conservatives back in power, so we can open the doors to the student financial aid market even wider – so all those for-profit IHEs and for-profit student loan vendors can make even MORE money off students.

goxewu, there’s a Nigerian somewhere who’d like your assistance…