You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
Course Strat’s recent article on the eight-year completion rates of large nonprofit online institutions exemplifies advocacy-driven analysis based on selective data points. The piece, which strongly insinuates that online education inherently leads to lower completion rates and thus requires accountability, shows a disturbing disregard for the complexities of educational outcomes.
The article heavily relies on observations from Michael Itzkowitz, president of the higher education consulting group HEA, who noted in a December LinkedIn post that seven of the largest nonprofit schools with online programs have eight-year completion rates falling below 50 percent. Itzkowitz states:
“A lot of the largest institutions in the country are having trouble with completion, especially those that provide more online or flexible options … We need to ensure we don’t jeopardize quality when we offer alternative delivery methods.”
To be clear, we don’t know if these institutions are indeed “having trouble” with completion or if they are doing an exceptional job deploying best practices tailored to their unique student profiles. Unfortunately, the government does not track certain demographic data necessary for a normalized analysis comparing these large online nonprofits to the general overall student population in the United States. Key missing data points include:
- Socioeconomic status: The article does not provide information on 1) the income levels of students at these institutions or 2) completion rates across different income tiers of the general population.
- Employment status: There’s no data on completion rates by employment status or the number of hours students work, which significantly influences their academic journey.
- Family responsibilities: The article overlooks the impact of students with children, particularly those juggling multiple or young children.
- Racial disparities: While mentioning data, the article does not explore why Black (47.3 percent) and Latinx students (55 percent) have lower completion rates compared to white (71.9 percent) and Asian (78.6 percent) students, potentially perpetuating a narrative that blames the educational format rather than addressing obvious broader systemic issues.
- Number of incoming credit hours: Online students are traditionally transfer students from other institutions. There exists a significant relationship between the number of incoming credit hours and the likelihood of graduation. Students who enter with more credits, whether from community colleges, other four-year institutions or through prior learning assessments, tend to have higher graduation rates.
The article also features Justin Ortagus from the University of Florida, who posits:
“Online programs [are] not an excuse for low-quality curricula and meager support services that leave vulnerable students paying for a credential they may never earn.”
These assertions assume online education is substandard without presenting evidence to back this claim. The assertion is taken without evidence and without an opportunity for rebuttal by an educator who can speak to online pedagogy and best practices. Course Strat’s omission of perspectives from educators directly involved in these online programs is not just an oversight; it’s journalistic negligence.
Who will be targeted next based on such shallow analysis? Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs)? Their six-year completion rate stands at 45.9 percent (no eight-year completion rate to my knowledge is available). Or perhaps community colleges, with an eight-year completion rate of 45 percent? Will IHE start to run articles on why community colleges and HBCUs should no longer be subsidized with taxpayer funds because of completion rates?
The fundamental question left unasked and unanswered is how students enrolled in online programs would perform in traditional settings under the same socioeconomic, racial and personal circumstances. Given the flexibility offered by online, it’s conceivable that many of these students would lack access to and be unable to enroll in higher education. Unfortunately, academic review of higher education tends to conflate correlation with causation and ignores the reality that inputs matter when describing educational outcomes.
Course Strat is an exceptional publication that in this particular case has atypically done a disservice of presenting a skewed, superficial analysis that could mislead public perception of online education. Their reporting is not only incomplete but also irresponsible, lacking the critical insights needed to understand the nuanced reality of student completion rates.
