adult learners in higher education: barriers to success

Adult Learners inHigher EducationBarriers to Success and Strategiesto Improve Results

M A R C H 2 0 0 7

Employment and Training Administration

Occasional Paper 2007-03

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE seeks to accelerate theeducational and economic advancement of youth andadults struggling in today’s economy. JFF partners withleaders in education, business, government, andcommunities around the nation to: strengthenopportunities for youth to succeed in postsecondarylearning and high-skill careers; increase opportunities forlow-income individuals to move into family-supportingcareers; and meet the growing economic demand forknowledgeable and skilled workers.

For more than a decade, EDUVENTURES has been themost trusted and influential name in education marketresearch, consulting services, and peer networking. Ourclients include senior administrators and executives fromleading educational institutions and companies servingthe K-12, higher education, and corporate learning mar-kets, as well as decision-makers in government agenciesand the investment community.

FUTUREWORKS is a consulting and policy developmentfirm that helps its clients design and build the strategiesand institutions that promote sustainable, skill-based,regional economic growth. Core competencies are rootedin deep knowledge and wide experience in linking soundtheory to effective practice in economic and workforcedevelopment, postsecondary education, and civicimprovement.

All materials that are copyrighted and protected byThe Copyright laws are marked with a copyrightNotice. Permission is granted to quote that materialfor noncommercial instructional, personal or scholarly

use. Any material quoted must include a completereference citation including the author and thispublication. Prior written permission from theauthor(s) is required for any other use of the materialsubmitted by author(s). However, those portions ofthis publication authored by employees of the U.S.Department of Labor or any other federal agency, arein the public domain, and may be quoted orreproduced without permission, with referencecitations.

This series presents research findings and analysesfrom papers prepared by research contractors, staffmembers and individual researchers. Manuscripts andcomments from interested individuals are welcome.All correspondence should be sent to:

ETA Occasional PapersOffice of Policy Development and ResearchFrances Perkins Building, Room N-5641200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20210

U.S. Department of LaborElaine L. Chao

Employment and Training AdministrationEmily Stover DeRocco, Assistant Secretary

Office of Policy Development and ResearchMaria K. Flynn, Administrator

March 2007

This report was prepared for the U.S.Department of Labor, Employment andTraining Administration, Office of PolicyDevelopment and Research by Jobs forthe Future. Since contractors conductingresearch and evaluation projects undergovernment sponsorship are encouragedto express their own judgment freely, thisreport does not necessarily representofficial opinion or policy of the U.S.Department of Labor.

Adult Learners in Higher EducationBarriers to Success and Strategies to Improve Results

This report was prepared under Contract No. DOL

AF125370000230 from the U.S. Department of Labor.

The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the

policies or opinions of the U.S. Department of Labor.

Adult Learners inHigher Education:Barriers to Success and Strategiesto Improve Results

March 2007

Jobs for the FutureRichard Kazis

EduventuresAbigail CallahanChris DavidsonAnnie McLeod

FutureWorksBrian BosworthVickie ChoitzJohn Hoops

Adult Learners in Higher Education iii

The authors would like to thank the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and

Training Administration for its support of this research project. In particular, we would

like to thank the following individuals for their support, expertise, and enthusiasm for this

project, for funding this research, and for their continued advice and expertise: Maria

Flynn; Mary Ann Donovan; Wayne Gordon; and Roxie Nicholson. Many thanks to sever-

al colleagues at Jobs for the Future for their insights and advice: Marlene B. Seltzer; Heath

Prince; and Jerry Rubin. Our appreciation also goes to Marc S. Miller for his careful and

timely editing. Orson Watson, a consultant to JFF, conducted valuable research and con-

tributed greatly to the research and early drafting of sections of this report

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Section I. Adult Learners in Higher Education:Trends in Demographics, Institutional Growth, and Gaps in Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Section 2. Accessibility:Greater Flexibility and More Accelerated Learning Options Are Needed for Adult Learners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Section 3. Affordability:New Strategies of Student Aid and Institutional Financing Are Necessary toSupport the Needs of Adult Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Section 4. Accountability:Efforts to Monitor Quality and Drive Improved Outcomes MustIncorporate Measures of Adult Learner Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Section 5. Recommendations:A Plan for Addressing Adult Learners’ Needs in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Adult Learners in Higher EducationBarriers to Success and Strategies to Improve Results

List of Figures

Figure 1. Median Earning by Level of Education, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 2. U.S. Population by Race/Ethnicity, 1980 to 2020 Projected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 3. Educational Attainment of Adults over 25 Years of Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 4. Percent of Population Over 25 Participating in Work-related Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 5. Distribution of Students by Traditional/Non-traditional Status, 1999-2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 6. Percent of Undergraduates with Non-traditional Characteristics, 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 7. Postsecondary Undergraduate Enrollment by Type of Institution, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 8. Compound Annual Growth Rate for Postsecondary Institution Segments, 1992-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 9. Total IT Certifications Awarded to Date, Selected Certificate Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

List of Tables

Table 1. Compound Annual Growth Rate of Higher Education Enrollments by Age, 2000-2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Undergraduates According to Type of Institution Attended, 1999-2000 . . . . . . 10

Table 3. Annual and Total Limits to Student Borrowing under Stafford Loan Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 4. Prioritized Ranking of Enrollment Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 5. Outcome Measures Employers Value Most inEvaluating Employee Learning and Development Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 6. Strategic Objectives of Senior Higher Education Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 7. Statewide Numerical Goals for Student Access and Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Jobs for the Future—with its partners Eduventures andFutureWorks—was asked by the U.S. Department ofLabor to synthesize the research literature on the chal-lenges facing adult learners in higher education todayand emerging strategies for increasing the number ofadults over 24 who earn college credentials and degrees.This synthesis is meant to provide perspectives on keyissues facing adults as more and more of them see theneed for higher education credentials, not just for short-term training. The project has two phases: first, this doc-ument, which is a broad, synthetic overview of the issues;and second, a more in-depth exploration of particularhigh-value topics that will be agreed upon by the part-ners and department personnel.

Powerful economic, demographic, and market trends arereshaping the landscape of higher education, particularlyfor adults. Moreover, it is wise to ask how these trendsmight affect its key constituencies: employers whodepend on increasingly highly skilled employees for theircompetitive success and growth; job seekers who needmore than high school credentials to succeed in the econ-omy; and workers who may have to, or want to, transi-tion to new careers.

If there is one overarching “takeaway” from this survey, itis that traditional higher education programs and poli-cies—created in an era when the 18- to 22-year-old,dependent, full-time student coming right out of highschool was seen as the core market for higher educa-tion—are not well-designed for the needs of adult learn-ers, most of whom are “employees who study” ratherthan “students who work.”

This first paper looks at the nature of the obstacles thatadult learners face in trying to earn credentials with labormarket value, the promise of innovative practices thattarget adult learners, and changes in institutional andgovernmental policies that might help more adults earnhigher education credentials. The paper is divided intofive sections that explore the following:

1) Supply and demand dynamics: The changing nature ofadult access to and success in higher education and theresponse of different segments of the higher educationindustry;

2) Accessibility: Ways in which traditional delivery sys-tems create barriers for adult learners and how thesebarriers might be overcome though innovative pro-gramming design and delivery;

3)Affordability: Obstacles to adult success in higher edu-cation that are a function of student financial aid andinstitutional funding policies and practices—andstrategies that can make aid and adequate fundingmore accessible to adult learners;

4)Accountability: Accountability systems in higher educa-tion and how they would have to change to make adultoutcomes more visible and better drive improvementin how well college programs serve adult learners; and

5)Recommendations: A plan for addressing adult learners’needs in higher education, addressing each of themajor topics in this report: accessibility, affordability,and accountability.

Each section begins with a brief set of talking pointssummarizing the main findings and their implications.The research and policy literature is reviewed. Promisinginnovations are mapped. Their implications for improv-ing college access and success for adult learners are high-lighted.

During the second phase, Jobs for the Future and itspartners will undertake additional research on knowledgegaps that were identified in the process of preparing thisoverview. Possible topics for phase II analysis includeassessments of: higher education capacity to serve signifi-cantly greater numbers of adult learners and the factorsthat will shape capacity and the supply/demand balancein the coming years; faculty quality and preparation inprograms and fields where adult learners are concentratedin higher education; and the implications of changingpatterns of college-going for employer engagement in thedesign of curricula, provision of work-based learningexperiences, financing of adult college-going, andinvolvement in the design of and reliance upon improvedaccountability measures.

Preface

2 Adult Learners in Higher Education

Talking Points

This paper examines barriers to higher education successfacing non-traditional, adult learners and identifiespromising strategies for overcoming these obstacles.

• Adult learners over age 24 currently comprise about44 percent of U.S. postsecondary students, butmany millions more need postsecondary credentialsto succeed economically.

• The practices and policies of the higher educationsystem continue to favor traditional, financiallydependent, 18- to 21-year-old high school graduateswho enroll full time.

The transformation of the world economy increasinglydemands a more highly educated workforce with postsec-ondary skills and credentials.

• Today’s adults need higher levels of academic andtechnical knowledge to remain employable in aninformation and service economy characterized byfrequent job and career change.

• Adults with postsecondary credentials earn signifi-cantly more than those with just a high school edu-cation—and the gap has widened.

• Job categories with the fastest expected growth inthe next decade require postsecondary education;those with the greatest expected decline require onlyon-the-job training.

The United States runs the risk of being hobbled econom-ically by an adult population that is insufficiently quali-fied to meet the demands of the modern workplace.

• Over 60 percent of the U.S. population between theages of 25 and 64 had no postsecondary educationcredential in 2004.

• Demographic shifts are expected to worsen the gapbetween qualifications and job demands, creating ashortage of 9 million qualified workers by 2014.

• Higher education must look more closely at how toraise the skill levels of the current workforce; theeconomy cannot depend solely on future graduatinghigh school students.

The adult learner market is large and has great potentialto grow.

• Growing numbers of adults are participating inpostsecondary and work-related courses; as many as37 million more adults are interested but unable toparticipate.

• Projections assume a slower growth rate for 2005-10for students over age 25 in college credential pro-grams than for traditional 18- to 21-year-olds,despite the predicted gap in the labor market.

Adult learners face significant challenges in seeking post-secondary credentials and degrees.

• The vast majority of adult learners are financiallyindependent, work part time or full time, havedependents, and must juggle many responsibilitieswith school.

• Adults have lower postsecondary persistence andcompletion rates than traditional students.

• Understanding the unique needs of adult learners iscritical to designing higher education systems andpolicies that support this population and promotetheir success.

Some types of higher education providers are moreresponsive than traditional institutions to adult learnerneeds and interests.

• Institutions that offer shorter programs and voca-tional and technical degrees and certificates are mostpopular with adult learners.

• Community colleges and for-profit institutions havebeen particularly aggressive in creating programsand policies to address the needs of adult learners.

Section I.

Adult Learners in Higher Education:Trends in Demographics, Institutional Growth, and Gaps in Service

Adult Learners in Higher Education 3

• The flexibility and convenience of online educationmakes it particularly attractive to adult learners anda fast-growing segment of the postsecondary market.

The U.S. higher education system can—and must—do amuch better job of improving adult learner access andsuccess.

• The remaining sections of this paper examine theareas of accessibility, affordability, and accountabilityfor opportunities to better align the higher educationsystem with the needs of adult learners and theemployers who hire them.

Introduction

No longer is the financially dependent, 18-year-old highschool graduate who enrolls full time the “typical collegestudent.” More than half of today’s postsecondary stu-dents are financially independent; more than half attendschool part time; almost 40 percent work full time; 27percent have children themselves (NCES 2002). Moreand more adults are looking for ways to upgrade andexpand their skills in an effort to improve or protect theireconomic position. Many are ending up in credential ordegree-granting programs in colleges and universities.

However, today’s higher education institutions—two-and four-year, public and private—are failing to serveadult learners well. For too many adults who want toearn postsecondary credentials, the traditional structureand organization of higher education pose significantbarriers to access and, particularly, to persistence and suc-cess.

This paper examines the obstacles facing non-traditional,adult learners—and points to emerging strategies forovercoming the barriers that keep too many adults on thesidelines of college learning. This paper argues that tradi-tional higher education institutions can do a much betterjob of serving adults. Huge numbers of adults—overseven million individuals over 25 years of age—areenrolling in both two- and four-year institutions.However, the mismatch between adult learners’ needsand the organizational, funding, and accountability sys-tems in higher education must be addressed—in practiceand in policy—if adult learners are to routinely findhigher education institutions responsive and effective.

As the convening of the Secretary of Education’sCommission on the Future of Higher Education demon-strates, there is growing national concern about the effec-

tiveness and responsiveness of higher education. Highand rising college costs, weak and uneven student out-comes, limited institutional accountability for results—these are all receiving significant new attention at thenational, state, and institutional levels. Too often, those

who debate these challenges and their solutions giveshort shrift to the needs and the potential market ofadult learners, falling back into an outdated conceptionof higher education as dominated by younger, full-timelearners. The costs of this approach—both to adults whowant to upgrade their skills and to our economy that des-perately needs more and better-skilled adult workers—are tremendous. The purpose of this paper is to look athigher education from the perspective of the more thanseven million adults enrolled in college degree and cre-dential programs and the many millions more who need,and are trying to secure, skills and credentials that canhelp them succeed economically and make a more posi-tive contribution to society.

Changing Workplaces Put MoreEmphasis on Education

The transformation of the world economy over the pastseveral decades has put a premium on an educated work-force. The industrial economy of the early 20th centurythat created remunerative work for unskilled labor hasgiven way to an information and service economy thatdemands higher levels of academic and technical knowl-edge, as well as other skills such as good communicationand problem-solving abilities.

A more fluid and volatile global economy is characterizedby more frequent job and career change, which is animportant factor in the growing demand for continuallearning and skill enhancement.1 During the late 1990s,about one of every five large U.S. employers downsizedits workforce. In addition, more than a third reportedsimultaneously creating jobs in one division while shed-ding jobs in another (National Governors Association2002). To remain employable in such an environment,workers continually need to learn new skills and adaptrapidly to new job roles.


The Economy Rewards Skillsand Credentials

The ability to access education and training is critical to

current and future generations of adult workers seekinghigher wages and a better quality of life. Unlike previousgenerations for whom a high school or GeneralEducation Degree (GED) diploma provided a ticket to aliving-wage job, the bar has been raised for today’s adults.Postsecondary degrees and certificates have become criti-cal even for workers in the lower and middle tiers of thelabor market.

A recent analysis of Census data on labor market partici-pation in Louisiana (prior to Hurricane Katrina), con-ducted by the National Center for Higher EducationManagement Systems, found a significant disparity inlabor market participation by educational attainment.Only 37 percent of those with less than a high schooldiploma were competing in the labor market, comparedto 60 percent of those with a high school diploma and 80percent of individuals with an Associate’s degree or high-er (U.S. Census Bureau 2002).

The earnings premium for postsecondary credentials isalso significant. In 2003, the median earnings of anAmerican worker with only a high school diploma was$30,800, 38 percent less than the $48,800 median forthose with a Bachelor’s degree. (See Figure 1.)The signifi-cant positive return to increasing one’s education is evidentat all levels of educational attainment. It has only grownover time. Whereas in 1975, a worker with a Bachelor’s

degree could expect to make 1.5 times the salary of aworker with only a high school diploma, this ratio hadincreased to 1.8 by 1999 (Day and Newburger 2002).

The value of a postsecondary credential for futureemployment and earnings is expected to rise. For exam-ple, the three job categories projected by the Bureau ofLabor Statistics to be among the 10 fastest-growing

through 2014 (as measured by total number of new andvacant positions) and pay a median annual salary over$29,000 (approximately the federal lower living standardincome level for a family of four) all require postsec-ondary credentials (Hecker 2005). Similarly, 15 of the 20occupations predicted to grow the fastest (in terms of per-centage growth in new and vacant positions) require someform of postsecondary education, while nine require aBachelor’s degree or better. All 20 jobs expected to sufferthe greatest decline in openings by 2014 require only on-the-job training (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2005).

Demographic Trends Will Worsen theGap Between Labor Market Needs andEducational Attainment

At the same time that postsecondary credentials arebecoming more critical for economic and labor marketsuccess, demographic changes are working against anyautomatic rise in postsecondary attainment for the adultpopulation as a whole. As the predominantly white andcomparatively well-educated baby boom generationmoves toward retirement, there will be fewer young peo-ple moving into the labor force to take their place. In

Professional Degree

Doctorate Degree

Master’s Degree

Bachelor’s Degree

Associate Degree

Some College, No Degree

High School Diploma

Less than High School Diploma

$ $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000

2003 Median Salary

Figure 1. Median Earning by Level of Education, 2003

Source: Education Pays 2004, College Board


addition, because younger age cohorts in this country aremore racially and ethnically diverse and have greater rep-resentation from groups that have historically not beenwell-served in either K-12 or postsecondary education,educational attainment rates are likely to drop, at just the

time when the economy needs them to rise.

By 2020, the proportion of whites in the workforce

between the ages of 25 and 64 is expected to havedropped 19 percentage points to 63 percent, down fromits 1980 level of 82 percent. During the same period, thepercentage of Hispanic residents aged 25-64 will nearlytriple from 6 percent to 17 percent, and the proportionof African Americans in the U.S. population will grow byalmost a third (National Center for Public Policy andHigher Education 2005). (See Figure 2.) In Texas, a statewith very fast-growing Hispanic population, the statedemographer projects that the state will have moreHispanic than Anglo residents by the year 2020(Murdock 2004).

This demographic shift will have a direct impact on theeducational attainment of the U.S. workforce—unlesshigher education institutions break with their historicpatterns of access and completion. According to 2000Census data, whites are twice as likely as AfricanAmericans and three times as likely as Hispanics/Latinosto earn a Bachelor’s degree. The racial gap in educationalattainment has actually grown since 1980. Between 1980and 2000, the percentage of working-ageHispanics/Latinos with Bachelor’s degrees rose three per-centage points to 11 percent and that of African

Americans rose 6 percentage points to 15 percent.During the same period, the Bachelor’s degree attain-ment rate for whites jumped a full 10 percentage points(National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education2005). If these current patterns continue, the result will

be a significant erosion in the average education level ofthe U.S. workforce. The percentage of the workforcewith less than a high school diploma may grow by nearly15 percent over the next 20 years, accompanied bydecreases in the fraction of the population that will haveearned higher-level credentials and degrees (Kelly 2005).

The implications for the nation’s economy are troubling.Assuming no change in the racial/ethnic educationalattainment gap over time, the National Center for PublicPolicy and Higher Education (2005) projects a loss of$395 in annual personal income per capita between2000 and 2020—a decrease of 2 percent compared to a41 percent increase between 1980 and 2000. Thisexpected decrease would carry broad implications, givenits impact on individual purchasing power, tax revenues,and the demand for public services. In Texas, where morethan half of all Hispanic adults over 25 years of age haveless than a high school diploma, the state demographerprojects a drop in baccalaureate attainment from 18 to13 percent of the adult population by 2040, contributingto a projected decline in average household income ofbetween 10 and 15 percent—unless educational attain-ment rises significantly (Murdock 2004).

The U.S. runs the very real risk of being hobbled eco-nomically by an adult population that is insufficiently

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

82%72%

63%

10%

6%

11% 17%13%

Whites

African-AmericansHispanics/LatinosAsian AmericansNative Americans

1980 2000 2020P

Figure 2. U.S. Population by Race/Ethnicity, 1980 to 2020 Projected

Source: U.S. Census Bureau as reported in National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2005


qualified to meet the demands of the modern workplace.Estimates suggest that by 2014 the U.S. labor force willexperience a shortage of 9 million college-educated work-ers: excess openings will exist for 3 million Associate’s

degree holders, 4 million Bachelor’s degree holders, and 2million advanced degree holders (Employment PolicyFoundation 2004).

The inescapable reality is that the combination of risingskill requirements and changing demographics makes itessential that the nation look to better meeting the needsof its adult workers for skills and credentials—now. Thesolution does not lie solely with educating the next gen-eration: the state of Washington has estimated that thenumber of adults with either a high school diploma orless or a need for ESL instruction is equal to the numberof high school graduates projected for the next ten yearsfrom the state’s secondary schools. The U.S. must find away to raise the skill levels of the current workforce sothat adults with limited abilities will be able to succeed injobs requiring higher levels of literacy, technologicalknow-how, and problem-solving capabilities.

Adult Learners Are a Huge Market forHigher Education—And They AreDemanding Skills and Credentials

According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau (2004),over 60 percent of the U.S. population between the agesof 25 and 64 in 2004 had no postsecondary educationcredential. (See Figure 3.) That is about 65 million people

over 25 years of age (Bosworth and Choitz 2002).

Growing numbers of working adults have responded toclear economic signals that they will need more educa-tion and training to do well in today’s economy. TheNational Household Education Survey has found consis-tent increases over the past few decades in the number of

adults participating in some form of postsecondary edu-cation or training and taking work-related courses. Thenumber of adults engaging in any form of adult educa-tion increased from 58 million in 1991 to 90 million in1999, a remarkable rise in a decade’s time (Bosworth andChoitz 2002). In 2003, 33 percent of the populationover 25 reported participating in work-related courses(defined by the Department of Education as courses onnarrow topics, delivered in concentrated courses, usuallyin non-accredited postsecondary institutions)—up from24 percent in 1999. (See Figure 4.)

Many more adults would like to participate in work-related courses than currently do. An analysis byFutureWorks of the 1995 National HouseholdEducation Survey indicated that there may be as many as37 million adults who are interested in work-relatedadult education but unable to participate; 27 percent ofworking adults in the survey had not participated inwork-related education in the prior 12 months(Bosworth and Choitz 2002).

Adult enrollments in college credential programs havealso risen, though more slowly. The percentage of thepopulation over age 25 enrolled in colleges and universi-

Doctorate

Professional

Master’s

Bachelor’s

Associate

Some College

High School

Less than HS

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Percent of Population over 25

Figure 3. Educational Attainment of Adults over 25 Years of Age

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2004.


Adult Learners Have Different Needsand Face Different Barriers thanTraditional Students

Adult learners face significantly different challenges tocompleting an education program than students whoenroll in college immediately after high school, dependon their parents financially, and work part time or lesswhile in school. A 1998 study by Mathematica PolicyResearch found four consistent and powerful barriers tofurther education for working adults (Silva et al. 1998):

• The lack of time to pursue education;

• Family responsibilities;

• The scheduling of course time and place; and

• The cost of educational courses.

These obstacles pose challenges to both access to collegecredential programs and to persistence and success, par-ticularly for students who work full time and attend col-lege part time.

In a 2002 report, Nontraditional Undergraduates, theNational Center for Education Statistics defined non-tra-ditional students as students with any of seven character-istic risk factors:

• Delayed enrollment in postsecondary educationbeyond the first year after high school graduation;

• Part-time attendance;

• Financial independence from parents;

• Full-time work;

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Year1995 1999 2001 2003

22%24%

31%33%

Figure 4. Percent of Population Over 25 Participating in Work-related Education

Source: NCES, Participation in Adult Education for Work-Related Reasons, 2002-2003; NCES, The Condition of EducationIndicator 8; Eduventures analysis

ties and seeking a degree or certificate grew from about12 percent in 1970 to about 18 percent in 2002, anincrease of 50 percent (NCES 2004). In recent decades,enrollment of adults over age 24 in college credentialprograms has grown far faster than that of younger stu-dents. In 1999-2000, 7.1 million individuals age 24 orolder comprised 43 percent of all undergraduate enroll-ment, up from 28 percent in 1970 (Berker, Horn, andCarroll 2003).

This trend appears to be shifting. The U.S. Departmentof Education’s projections of annual growth in postsec-ondary students of different age ranges for the next fiveyears assume a slowing of the growth rate for studentsover 25 years of age. (See Table 1.) While the rate ofgrowth from 2000-2005 was higher for adult students 25years and older than for the traditional 18-21 year olds,the predicted rates through 2010 are lower and insignifi-cant relative to the need.

Table 1. Compound Annual Growth Rate ofHigher Education Enrollments by Age, 2000–2010

Compound Annual Projected CompoundGrowth Rate Annual Growth Rate

Age Group (2000-2005) (2005-2010)

18 and 19 years old 1.0% 1.9%

20 and 21 years old 2.6% 2.2%

22 to 24 years old 3.7% 1.5%

25 years old and greater 2.8% 1.3%

Source: NCES, 2004


• Having dependents (other than a spouse);

• Being a single parent; and

• No high school diploma (or GED).

Students who fit only one of these characteristics werelabeled “minimally non-traditional,” those who fit two or

three were “moderately non-traditional,” and those withfour or more were “highly non-traditional.”

In the academic year 1999-2000, only 27.4 percent ofundergraduates met none of these risk factors and could

be categorized as traditional students. Just about thesame percentage, 27.7 percent, were found to be highlynon-traditional. Slightly more—28 percent—were iden-tified as moderately non-traditional and 16.6 met the cri-teria for minimally non-traditional (Choy 2002). (SeeFigure 5.)

Over half of non-traditional students in 2000 were finan-

cially independent. Just under half attended college parttime, and 46 percent had not enrolled in college directlyafter high school. Part-time enrollment was significantlymore common for students who reported working fulltime, with 73 percent doing so. Figure 6 summarizes thepercentage of all students who reported each of the non-traditional characteristics (Choy 2002).

Although not all non-traditional students are adults(many 18-21 year olds meet at least one of the seven cri-teria), all adult college students are by definition non-tra-ditional. Financially independent, working full time,with dependents and family responsibilities to juggle,and back in school after an extended time out—adultlearners are at great risk of not achieving their postsec-ondary education goals. Over 40 percent of highly andmoderately non-traditional students indicated in a surveythat work had a negative effect on their grades. Morethan half also reported that working harmed their abilityto schedule classes and register for the number of classesthey desired (Choy 2002).

Highly Non-traditional28%

Moderately Non-traditional28%

Minimally Non-traditional17%

Traditional27%

Figure 5. Distribution of Students byTraditional/Non-traditional Status, 1999-2000

Source: Choy 2002

Financially independent

Attended part time

Delayed enrollment

Worked full time

Had dependents

Single parent

No high school diploma

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Percent of Enrolled Students

Figure 6. Percent of Undergraduates with Non-traditional Characteristics, 1999-2000

Source: Choy 2002


A recent study took a close look at adult undergraduateswho both work and attend college—about 82 percent ofthe population of adults age 24 and older enrolled inpostsecondary education (Berker, Horn, and Carroll2003). This study contrasted the characteristics and col-

lege experiences of two groups: students who work, i.e.,individuals who saw themselves as students first, workingto help pay expenses; and employees who study, individu-als who see themselves as workers first, taking collegeprograms to help them improve their job prospects or forother reasons. In 1999-2000, a significant majority—about two out of three working college students—sawthemselves as employees first and students second.Among both groups, getting a degree or credential wastheir primary goal. Among employees who study, about athird had enrolled because their job required them toseek additional education.

“Employees who study” tend to be older, work more,attend school less, and have family responsibilities, com-pared to their peers whose primary activity was being astudent. They tend, therefore, to be more likely to havemultiple risk factors associated with moderately andhighly non-traditional students. According to thisresearch, 68 percent of working adults who identifiedthemselves as employees who study in 1999-2000 were atsubstantial risk of not completing their postsecondaryprogram, by virtue of their being both employed fulltime and studying only part time (compared to only 18percent of students who work).

Indeed, adults who are working full time and studyingpart time have trouble completing their programs. Sixyears after beginning postsecondary studies, 62 percentof these adult learners had not completed a degree or cer-tificate and were no longer enrolled, compared to 39 per-cent of students who work. Employees who study were atparticular risk of leaving postsecondary education intheir first year with no credential, compared to only 7percent of students who work (Berker et al. 2003).2

These findings are consistent with those of the NCESstudy of non-traditional students, which found that non-traditional students are considerably less likely to com-plete their program. Three years after enrolling in a com-munity college, nearly half of non-traditional studentshad left school without a degree, compared to only one-fifth of traditional students. Similarly, a six-year study ofstudents enrolled at four-year colleges and universities

found non-traditional students with at least two risk fac-tors completed at a rate of less than 15 percent, com-pared to 57 percent of traditional students (Choy 2002).

Some Types of Institutions AreMore Responsive to Adult Learnersthan Others

While adult learners face significant barriers to access andsuccess, some segments of postsecondary education havebeen more responsive to their needs and interests. Notsurprisingly, given the preponderance of adult learnerswho are looking for maximum labor market benefit fromshorter courses, institutions that grant vocational andtechnical certificates and degrees are attracting the largestnumbers of adult learners, rather than traditional four-year baccalaureate institutions. A study of Census Bureaudata indicates significant increases in adult attainment ofshorter-term degrees in the past 20 years:

• From 1984 to 1996, the number of adults with voca-tional certificates more than doubled, from 1.8 percentof the population to 4.2 percent.

• During the same period, the number of adults withAssociate’s degrees nearly doubled, from 3.4 percent to6.1 percent.

• The growth in vocational and Associate’s degrees easilyoutpaced the increase in baccalaureate attainment,which grew about 33 percent.

The absolute number of adult learners who are benefit-ing from this growth in vocational certificates andAssociate’s degrees remains small—particularly comparedto the attrition rates of adult learners from college cre-dential programs. However, these data point to a cleartrend among adult learners. Given their schedules andother obligations, adult learners demonstrate a preferencefor institutions and programs that are shorter and morevocational in nature. This is evident in the patterns ofenrollment of traditional and non-traditional undergrad-uates in higher education presented in Table 2.


In broad terms, the U.S. higher education system can besegmented into three categories. (See Figure 7):

• Traditional Public and Private Four-Year Institutions;

• Community Colleges (public two-year); and

• For-Profit/Proprietary.

While each of these segments serve the working adultpopulation, they vary in their approach and focus.Two—community colleges and for-profit institutions—have been far more aggressive in trying to meet the par-ticular needs of adults who want to earn college creden-tials. That strategy is evident in the number of adults

who have turned to these institutions for their collegecredential programs in the past 10 to 20 years.

Traditional Public/Private, Four-Year InstitutionsUse Continuing Education to Serve AdultLearners

Public and private four-year colleges and universitieshave persisted over the past decades as the predominantproviders of higher education, serving over 10 millionstudents in 2002 (NCES 2004). Two-thirds of these stu-dents enroll in public institutions, which offer state-sub-sidized tuition substantially lower than that of privatecolleges and universities.

Student StatusPublic, lessthan 2 year

Public,2-year

Public,4-year

Privatenot-for-profit,

less than4-year

Privatenot-for-profit,

4-yearPrivate,

for-profit

Total 0.7 44.9 33.4 0.8 14.9 5.2

Traditional 0.2 17.3 52.1 1.0 27.3 2.2

Minimallynon-traditional 0.5 39.3 41.0 0.9 13.5 4.7

Moderatelynon-traditional 0.9 55.5 27.2 0.6 8.6 7.1

Highlynon-traditional 1.2 64.2 17.2 0.8 10.1 6.6

Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Undergraduates According to Type of Institution Attended,1999–2000

Source: NCES: nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2002/analyses/nontraditional/tables/tab03.asp

For Profit/Proprietary4%

Community Colleges (Public 2-Year)38%

Public andPrivate 4-Year58%

Figure 7. Postsecondary UndergraduateEnrollment by Type of Institution, 2002

Source: NCES 2004, Table 172


Many public and private four-year institutions also offercourses and degree programs to less traditional popula-tions through schools of continuing education. Whilesome schools offer Bachelor’s degree completion options,many cater to existing professionals interested in gradu-

ate-level degrees and certificates. Although schools ofcontinuing education serve adult learners, the adults whohave enrolled have not traditionally been drawn from theat-risk segments of the under-educated. In fact, anEduventures (2006) survey at a range of schools of con-tinuing education across the U.S. found that the averagehousehold income for current students was about$70,000, and more than 70 percent of survey respon-dents held a Bachelor’s degree or above. Moreover, thesestudents are often supported by employer tuition reim-bursements.

Community Colleges Serve Largest Portion ofAdult Learners

Community colleges enroll more than 6 million studentsin credit programs each year (along with another 5 mil-lion students in non-credit courses) at 1,157 institutionsacross the nation. Community colleges are very popularwith adult and other non-traditional students for a num-ber of reasons: their relative low cost; their mission toserve less academically prepared and lower-income stu-dents; their flexibility in scheduling where and whencourses are offered; their occupational and technical skillfocus and close ties to local employers. In 2001, over 2.6million people aged 25 and over enrolled in public two-year institutions, comprising 44 percent of total commu-nity college enrollment. An additional 13 percent ofcommunity college students were aged 22 to 24, mean-ing that more than half of community college attendeesare older than the traditional college student (NCES2004). Part-time students outnumber full-time studentsby 62 to 38 percent. Black, Hispanic, Asian and NativeAmerican students are all over-represented in communitycolleges compared to their enrollment in four-year col-leges and universities.

The popularity—and responsiveness—of communitycolleges to non-traditional and adult students can be seenin the distribution of different groups of traditional andnon-traditional students in their institutions. (See Figure8.) The more non-traditional the student, the more likely

that he or she will attend a community college.

For-profit Colleges Serve as a Benchmark forInstitutions Looking to Better Serve AdultLearners

For-profit institutions have been a fixture in Americanhigher education for years, but investment by publiccompanies with access to the capital needed to fundextensive marketing campaigns has raised the public’sawareness of these schools in the past decade. This seg-ment of higher education is small: about 770,000 stu-dents were served in 2005, according to Eduventuresestimates. It has been growing rapidly, though: for-profitpostsecondary education companies generated $15.4 bil-lion in revenue in 2004, up 14.3 percent from the prioryear, with about two-thirds of this growth attributed toincreases in enrollment (Eduventures 2004).

This postsecondary segment has been particularlyresponsive to the adult learner population. Eduventuresattributes the rapid growth of for-profit institutions (seeFigure 8) to differentiated offerings that allow for acceler-ated completion with flexible scheduling and to career-oriented programs tailored to the needs of specific labormarkets (Eduventures 2004). These characteristics areexactly those that adult learners are seeking to completetheir education. Harris Nesbitt estimates that 56 percentof students attending for-profit institutions are over theage of 24, compared to only 30 percent of those at pri-vate and public non-profits, confirming the appeal of for-profits to the adult learner (Silber and Fisher 2005).

Analysts are predicting that the kind of growth experi-enced by the for-profit sector in the past decade willdecelerate, as competition increases and other factorscome into play (Harris Nesbitt 2006).3 Regardless of theexact trajectory of this segment of the higher educationmarket, two generalizations can be drawn. First, the sec-tor appeals to adult learners, the market that it hasexplicitly targeted. For-profit institutions have the poten-tial to play a critical role in helping adult learnersadvance and succeed. Second, although the for-profitsector is small and will continue to serve particular nar-row industry and skill niches, the sector wields signifi-


cant power relative to its size as a benchmark of respon-siveness and flexibility in serving adults that institutionsin other, larger sectors (e.g., two- and four-year publicinstitutions) might emulate. In designing more effectivepractices to serve adult learners, the innovative approach-es of for-profit institutions point the way for other post-secondary institutions and systems to follow.

On-line Programs Hold Out Particular Promisefor Adult Learners

On-line education is an important innovation in highereducation design and delivery that is changing highereducation products and services in for-profit and not-for-profit, public and private, institutions. On-line educationhas shown significant growth, particularly with adultlearners, and appears to have great potential for helpingmore institutions serve adult learners more effectively.

On-line education programs and courses can be found inall higher education segments. It represents a new, flexi-ble medium in which the needs of adult learners may bemet. The growth of on-line learning has been dramatic.Enrollment in courses delivered entirely on line increasedby nearly 250 percent in the three years from 2002 to2005. Eduventures estimates that 1.2 million unique stu-dents were enrolled in postsecondary programs deliveredentirely on line in 2005, a 28 percent increase over theprevious year. This number is expected to continue toincrease so that, by early 2008, one of every ten postsec-ondary students will be participating in on-line distancelearning (Edventures, 2005d).

The stature of on-line education is increasing with keystakeholders. A recent survey by Eduventures found thatover 62 percent of employers considered on-line educa-tion equal to or better than face-to-face instruction(Eduventures 2005). In a survey of prospective studentsaged 18 and older, more than three-fourths of respon-dents said that they would consider a fully on-line pro-gram (Eduventures 2005c).

Older potential students are particularly interested in on-line provision. Over 80 percent of potential students over25 years of age reported they would consider an on-lineprogram, compared to 48 percent of respondents 18 to25 years old (Eduventures 2005c). The increased interestby adults is most likely attributable to the flexibility andconvenience offered by on-line programs. For example,students do not need to live near a college campus orcommit the time to commuting, parents can completecoursework while their children are asleep without pay-ing for childcare, and workers with unpredictable sched-ules can complete their coursework at a different timeeach week.

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%Public Private Not-for-profit Private For-profit

1.1% 1.3%

9.9%

Figure 8. Compound Annual Growth Rate for Postsecondary Institution Segments, 1992-2002

Source: U.S Department of Education, NCES, Condition of Education, 2004


The Way Forward:Strategies for Better Addressing theNeeds of the Adult Learner

This section has described the challenge of raising educa-tional attainment in the U.S. and the critical importanceof addressing the needs and demands of adult learners,the vast majority of whom work, have family and otherresponsibilities, and find it hard to free up time and dol-lars to attend school intensively. We have shown that alarge proportion of this population wants to raise theirskill and education levels and that they are finding waysto enter higher education, particularly as part-time orshort-duration students in institutions that are better setup to serve this population’s particular needs. This sec-tion has also highlighted the difficulties that adult learn-ers face in persisting in their programs, completing them,and achieving their educational goals. The costs of thisattrition and failure—for adults who want education, theemployers who need better skilled workers, and the soci-ety that bears the costs of this inefficiency—are too high.

In the remaining sections, we take a close look at areaswhere changes in the practices and policies that shapehow postsecondary institutions and adult learners inter-act could have a powerful impact on improving adultlearner access and success. We focus on three areas:

Accessibility: How program structure and delivery in tra-ditional higher education disadvantages workingadults—and what can be done to make institutionalofferings more adult-learner friendly, more flexible, andeasier to move through quickly.

Affordability: How current patterns of student financialaid and institutional funding reinforce the disadvantagesthat face adult learners, particularly working adults whoattend school part time—and how the biases againstadult learners can be mitigated.

Accountability: How current enthusiasm for greateraccountability in higher education threatens to create

and intensify institutional incentives that favor enroll-ment of traditional students over adult learners—andtake institutional attention away from reforms that canaddress adult student needs more effectively; also, whatan accountability system geared to meeting adult stu-dents’ needs might look like.

The research presented here begins to set out an agendafor further research and action to address this criticalchallenge from multiple perspectives. Each section beginswith a set of “talking points” that summarize the mainfindings from our review of the literature. The examplesand models we highlight in this paper tend to reflect theexperience of community colleges and for-profit institu-tions. This reflects our own knowledge base and ourresearch experience; it is also is an acknowledgement ofthe importance of these institutions to new directions inserving adult workers efficiently and effectively.

This paper is a broad review of the literature and avail-able research. We look forward to working with theDepartment to identify mutually agreeable, high-valuetopics for further research and analysis.


Talking Points

Adult learners have much different needs than tradition-al college students and face many challenges as they seekpostsecondary credentials.

• Adult learners are more likely to work full time andhave family responsibilities that compete for theirtime, energy, and financial resources.

• Adult learners want to minimize the amount of timethey spend in class while maximizing the economicpayoff of their effort.

The inability of the higher education system to meet theseneeds is a significant barrier to access and success formany adult learners.

• Traditional higher education institutions are organ-ized in ways better suited to younger, traditional stu-dents who are more likely to attend full time, workless, and have greater flexibility in terms of time andother commitments.

• As a result, adult learners have more trouble stayingin college and earning credentials than do more tra-ditional students.

Public and private institutions that target adult learnersseeking postsecondary credentials emphasize alternativesto the inflexibilities built into traditional higher educa-tion institutions.

Flexible and accelerated program schedules and designs

• Postsecondary institutions are increasingly offeringmore flexible schedules, such as weekend-only class-es, accelerated vacation programs, on-line instruc-tion, and critical support services during non-tradi-tional hours.

• Some institutions offer multiple entry, exit, andreentry points, including more frequent start timesthroughout the year.

• An area with great promise is the shortening andmodularizing of curricula and the offering of inter-im credentials linked to career advancement.

• Some community colleges are improving develop-mental education by offering basic skills and Englishlanguage instruction in work-related contexts andoccupational certificate programs.

“Adult-friendly” instructional methods

• For-profit institutions and many college occupation-al programs are emphasizing adult-focused teachingmethods with applied learning models and “practi-cal” curricula that tap into adult experiences in workand life.

• New partnerships with employers are helping tointegrate job-related content and teach what stu-dents need to advance in their careers.

Easier transitions and transfer across institutions

• Many individual institutions are creating systemsthat make it easier to move between non-credit andcredit courses and programs.

• Articulation agreements between institutions helpstudents know in advance which courses will receivecredit at their new school; statewide agreements canhelp smooth turf battles.

Government and institutional policies created during adifferent era in higher education are impeding theexpansion of models designed to meet adult needs.Program innovations are pushing against powerful tradi-tions of how higher education does business—and pointthe way toward how the sector’s organizational and busi-ness models must evolve.

• Alternative financial aid programs should be consid-ered for adult learners, whose preference for flexibleschedules and shorter course offerings often preventthem from qualifying for traditional aid.

Section 2.

Accessibility:Greater Flexibility and More Accelerated Learning OptionsAre Needed for Adult Learners


• Innovative adult learning programs that base cre-dentialing on demonstration of competency ratherthan on credit hours challenge traditional fundingsystems based on full-time-equivalent enrollments;more study is needed of the implications of this shift

from institutional to learner convenience.

• Credit transfer policy must adapt to balance adult

learners’ need for greater flexibility in credit accu-mulation with legitimate concerns about academicquality.

• The expansion of technology use has the potentialto standardize course content while customizinginstructional delivery, freeing up resources for moreeffective supports to help students stay in school andsucceed; more study is needed of this promisingnew area.

Introduction

Adult learners are more likely than traditional students towork full time and have family responsibilities that com-pete for their time, energy, and financial resources.Where and when classes are available become criticallyimportant criteria for deciding where to enroll. The abili-ty to access needed classes and skills quickly is anothercalculation driving students’ choices of schools and pro-grams—and their decisions about whether to enroll inany postsecondary program.

Adult learners—particularly the most economically vul-nerable and those most in need of additional credentialsto advance in the labor market—use a simple calculus.They ask: How can I maximize the economic value ofmy time in school while minimizing the amount of timeI have to spend in classes? They are looking for flexibility,convenience, and accelerated progress to skills and cre-dentials that pay off, as well as better odds for comple-tion.

Adult learners, many of whom have weak academicpreparation, have much lower persistence and comple-tion rates than more traditional and younger students.According to a 2003 General Accounting Office study,about two-thirds of less-than-half time enrolled adultswho began postsecondary certificate and degree programsin 1995-1996 did not complete a certificate six yearslater and were no longer enrolled in postsecondary edu-cation. The characteristics that make adult learners “non-traditional”—delayed entry into postsecondary educa-

tion; independent financial status; full-time employ-ment—also make them more vulnerable to gettingderailed and not achieving their educational goals.

Two sets of postsecondary institutions appear to be tak-ing more aggressive steps to serve adult learners moreeffectively: community colleges and the for-profit col-leges that cater explicitly to adult learners. This is certain-

ly true for the most vulnerable and needy adult learn-ers—those with lower incomes, poorer academicpreparation, and fewer learning options. According tothe National Center for Education Statistics, two thirdsof “highly non-traditional” adult learners (those withfour or more non-traditional characteristics) are concen-trated in public, two-year community colleges. In the lastdecade, as noted in Section 1, the for-profit proprietarysector has grown rapidly in enrollments, revenue, andcredentials granted.

If more higher education institutions are to adapt to thiscritically important market, they will have to rethinkinstitutional practices that make it difficult for non-tradi-tional adult learners to find appropriately flexible learn-ing programs. Public policy will need to adapt as well, sothat institutions can more easily respond to adult learn-ers’ needs.

Fortunately, the past decade has been one of significantinnovation and change within segments of higher educa-tion interested in competing for adult learners, amongtwo- and four-year, public and private, for- and non-profit institutions across the country. In this section, we:

• Outline key challenges and barriers facing adult learn-ers in higher education;

• Describe specific institutional-level innovations andpromising practices that can improve outcomes foradult learners; and

• Suggest challenges and solutions that require significantand thoughtful innovation beyond the capacity of indi-vidual postsecondary institutions, at the level of stateand federal policy, if new practices and delivery frame-works are to have an impact at significant scale.


Challenges and Barriers Faced byAdult Learners

The challenges facing adult learners trying to upgrade

skills, earn needed credentials, and advance to furthereducation and/or in the labor market can be groupedinto three categories:

• Program structure and duration that make access and

persistence difficult;

• Pedagogy and supports that do not meet adult learnerneeds; and

• Alignment of institutions and of courses and transfer-ability of credits that slow progress to credentials.

Program Structure and Duration that MakeAccess and Persistence Difficult

Two- and four-year colleges, excluding perhaps the mostselective four-year institutions, have long tried to servestudents who work by offering “night school” classes out-side the traditional nine-to-five business day. This recog-nition of many students’ need for flexibility enabledinstitutions to tap a broader market. In the current envi-ronment, the need for flexibility has grown well beyondthe scheduling of daytime courses in the evening.

Given their diversity, adult learners require a menu offlexible options for: when, where, and how courses andprograms are offered; how long it takes to complete aclass or a program; how easily students can move intoand out of classes and programs as their scheduleschange; and how they can shorten the time it takes tolearn sufficient basic skills to succeed in occupational oracademic programs.

Inflexible Schedules and Difficult to Access Locations:Adult learners trying to fit education into schedulesdominated by work and family obligations need to beable to take courses at night, on weekends, in intensiveblocks of vacation time, and in other varied schedules.They need access to courses at workplaces, in their neigh-borhoods, or at convenient satellite campuses, not just inmain campuses that may be many miles away.

Long Course and Program Duration: Adult learners areparticularly challenged by inflexibilities built into manymultiple-year programs and courses of study that lead tocredentials. Two-year programs, for most adult learners,are that in name only: about 78 percent of first-time, full-time community college students do not complete a two-year course of study within even three years (and this data

do not include the majority of community college stu-dents who attend part time) (Bailey et al. 2005). Takingsix or seven years to complete is not uncommon. Foradults who want a credential indicating that they havelearned new skills, perhaps skills their employers want

them to demonstrate, shorter-duration programs of studyor programs broken into smaller “chunks,” each with anintermediate credential, would be quite attractive.

Inflexible Entry, Exit and Reentry: Many part-time adultlearners attend college intermittently, picking up creditsor upgrading particular skills whenever they have thetime. Traditional degree programs are not designed tostretch-out completion over a longer period of time andhave their often varied courses add up to a certificate ordegree in the end. Open-entry, open-exit policies thatenable adult students to drop out of a course and returnin another term, picking up where they left off, withouthaving to repeat the entire course, can be critical to anadult learner’s ability to successfully complete certifica-tion and degree programs (Cook and King 2005).

Pre-collegiate Education: Where Many Adults Enter—and Stop: Many working adults enroll in postsecondaryprograms that can improve their career and incomepotential—only to find that they lack basic skills neces-sary to take even introductory degree-credited courses. Asa legacy of an often substandard secondary education,these adult students must first complete one or morenon-credit “developmental” English and math skillsclasses. Approximately 40 percent of all community col-lege students are required to take at least one remedialcourse (McCabe 2000). Many adult learners start evenfurther back on the educational ladder—in adult basiceducation courses geared to those with less than eighth-grade reading, writing, and math skills. Many fromimmigrant families start in English as a Second Languagecourses and programs.

Although such courses are designed to be a door intopostsecondary education (and there is sufficient evidencethat students who lack college-level reading and mathskills are unlikely to complete occupational or academiccollege degrees), they function for many students as thewall that keeps them from earning college credentials.Unable yet to take the classes that brought them to col-lege, time-constrained adults can get frustrated, losemotivation, and give up. It is not surprising that fewerthan half of all developmental education students com-plete their programs and move on to for-credit work(Kazis and Liebowitz 2003).


Pedagogy and Supports that Do NotMeet Adult Learner Needs

Another set of obstacles to adult learners’ success is the

lack of instruction and support that can engage them andput and keep them on a path to success. These areimportant challenges facing institutions that are gearedmore to teaching younger, traditional students.

Teaching Methods:Traditional postsecondary instruc-tional methods tend toward “chalk and talk” lectures andtextbooks that assume the student to be passive, with lit-tle experience or expertise to bring to the learning rela-tionship. The instructor defines what, how, and whenlearning takes place. For adult learners, these traditionalteaching methods can not only demean and infantilizethem, but they do not acknowledge the real-life experi-ences and knowledge that the students bring to class. Formany low-income adult learners, traditional pedagogicalapproaches replicate the very techniques that did notwork particularly well for them in high school. Adultlearners benefit from active engagement in defining thelearning program and approach, from methods that taptheir experience base as workers and in other aspects oflife, and from learning that is structured in ways thatalign with work settings—in teams, group discussions,emphasizing skill practice, use of technology, and use ofcase method to elicit lessons (Knowles 1970).

Adult-focused Academic and Social Supports: Becauseadult learners typically have spent a significant amount oftime away from the classroom, they often require addi-tional supports to succeed. This is especially true of low-income, minority, and first-generation college-goingadults, many of whom attended weak high schools thatprepared them inadequately for college success. In fact,adult learners need as much help as, if not more than,their younger cohorts. They frequently need non-aca-demic advice and assistance: for example, findingdependable child care is one of the biggest challengesconfronting adult learners, particularly at the lower-income levels.4 Adult learners also need a range of aca-demic supports and services, such as tutoring, financialaid advising, and personal counseling—available on andoff-campus, during and outside of traditional businesshours, from paid staff and peers. Particularly importantfor adults who are trying to navigate their way to a cre-dential is quality career counseling.

Poor Alignment of Learning Institutions andSystems that Limit Adult Worker Choices andProgress Toward Credentials

On its Web site, the KnowledgeWorks Foundationreports the plight of a fairly typical adult worker in Ohio:call him Ken Thomas. Ken is a custodian at a well-

known Ohio manufacturing facility, who decided that hewanted to be a draftsman to increase his salary. Afterearning his drafting certificate at a nearby adult careercenter (while working full time), Ken realized that hemade even less money than before. Setting his sightshigher, Ken checked out the engineering technician pro-gram at his local technical college, but he was told thatnone of his credits were transferable, despite the fact thathe had taken many of the same courses through his draft-ing certificate program. Defeated, Ken returned to beinga custodian.

Like Ken, adult learners want to earn credentials asquickly as they can. Frequently, though, the dominantorganizational model of higher education—individualinstitutions that create and offer their own programs,with little cross-institutional collaboration or sharing ofresources—creates barriers to achieving that goal:

• Within comparable segments of higher education (e.g.,four-year institutions), transferability of credits earnedfrom one institution to another is uncertain and can setstudents back as they try to get credit for prior experi-ence and courses.

• Across different levels, this becomes more problematic:community college courses are frequently rejected forcredit by four-year institutions; technical classes arerejected when students want to switch into differentprograms.

• Credits earned at for-profit institutions are routinelyrejected for credit by traditional private and publicnon-profit colleges.

In addition, disconnects between non-credit and creditprograms within two-year institutions, and betweenadult education providers and postsecondary institutionsexacerbate the inflexibility that constrains adult students:

• A worker might enroll in a non-credit course at a com-munity college, then continue on in a credit program,only to find that he must repeat similar material forcredit.


• A new immigrant might take an ESL class at a commu-nity-based organization but then find that the materialtaught did not align with the progression at the localcommunity college.

• A returning veteran might seek credit for skills learnedin the military, but is frustrated by institutional inflexi-bilities regarding prior learning outside traditional

institutions.

As individuals become more mobile and freer to chooseamong geographic regions, labor market sectors, andeducational institutions, students (and policymakers) arebeginning to demand that our educational institutionsand systems become less isolated, more interconnected,with greater transparency to the learner. Repeating coursework unnecessarily and negotiating institutional bureau-cratic obstacles can be powerful disincentives for adultlearners. The need for strategies that recognize the out-comes of learning undertaken in different contexts, andthat ensure that credit is more readily transferable, hasbecome increasingly important.

How Innovative PostsecondaryInstitutions are Responding to AdultLearner Needs

Adult learners pose some fundamental challenges to theorganizational model of traditional higher education. Yetthe growth in demand for higher education amongadults of many different skill and educational attainmentlevels is driving many institutions—in the public andprivate, for-profit and non-profit sectors—to seek a larg-er share of this market.

Lessons from the For-profit Sector

An entire industry has emerged in response: for-profitproprietary colleges and universities devoted exclusivelyto serving the needs of working adults have been rapidlyexpanding and flourishing. The sector is small in relationto all of higher education: 3 to 5 percent of all postsec-ondary education students enroll in for-profit institu-tions, while only 10 percent of the entire for-profitindustry possesses the regional accreditation that enablesthem to compete with traditional universities. Because oftheir limited range of course offerings tightly linked tostudents’ skill and career aspirations in a small number ofbusiness and technical fields, direct competition withcommunity colleges is likely to remain limited (Bailey etal. 2003). However, these schools are making significant

inroads—and appear to be having great success—servingadults within their targeted markets.

Data from the 1990s indicate that for-profit two-yearinstitutions account for a much higher share of comple-tion of degrees and certificates than they do of enroll-ments: their emphasis on credentials and completionpays off (Berg 2005).5 Even with fees higher than public

community colleges, for-profit models are surprisinglyeffective with minority, adult, and first-generation stu-dents. Of the top 100 institutions conferring degrees onpeople of color, the top producer of minority B.S.degrees in engineering-related technologies was ITTTechnical Institutes of California, while the number twoand three institutions conferring B.S. degrees in comput-er and information services on African Americans wereStrayer College and DeVry University—all for-profitinstitutions (Berg 2005).

Moreover, proprietary colleges provide a road map to thekinds of changes in organizational model that will beneeded across higher education if adult learners are to bebetter served. Here are some of the innovations that dis-tinguish these institutions (Bailey et al. 2003):

• Focused offerings targeted to meet specific career needsof adult learners.

• Curriculum and course content that are standardizedand developed centrally, making it possible for studentsto take courses at different campuses of the same insti-tution or find the same course taught at different timesat different campuses.

• Use of technology to deliver instruction on line and incombination with classroom instruction.

• Faculty hiring decisions that are biased toward appli-cants with industry experience and an appreciation ofapplied learning (in addition to an education credentialin their field).

• Instructional methods that are hands-on and practical.

• Integration of some general education courses withoccupational content, and delay of general educationcourses until after students have started their technicalprogram.

• Aggressive and integrated marketing strategy that linksadmissions, financial aid, assessment, advisement, andregistration.


• Employment focus that emphasizes counseling andplacement and tracking of employment outcomes.

• Flexible scheduling with frequent entry and exitoptions.

• Accelerated time to degree as a priority, with shortercourse lengths.

• Data-driven assessment of student learning and pro-gram value to students.

Like any new and fast-growing industry, the for-profitcollege industry is vulnerable to wide variations in qualityand outcomes, as well as to fraud and exploitation of stu-dents (Dillon 2005). There is a need for policies that canmitigate the excesses without constraining the very realstrengths of this sector (Sperling and Tucker 1997). Butthe power of their redesign of education is significant. Asone University of Phoenix administrator notes, “We’rereally fulfilling a need for what has been an almost forgot-ten segment of the population: adults” (Berg 2005).

Responses from Traditional Institutions

Like the for-profit sector, two- and four-year colleges arealso responding to the new demand for more flexible andaccelerated models of adult learning. Nearly 60 percentof colleges and universities articulate some type of com-mitment to serving adult students in their mission state-ments or strategic plans (Cook and King 2005).“Traditional” colleges and universities with a majority18- to 22-year-old population offer special programs tar-geted toward adult learners, such as support services,night and weekend classes, and distance education.Community colleges—for which the adult market is acritically important part of their mission and businessstrategy—are making particularly aggressive efforts toincorporate some of the approaches evident in the for-profit world into their more comprehensive and complexinstitutional culture.

In the following pages, we present some novel and prom-ising solutions to the dominant inflexibilities built intomore traditional higher education institutions. We lookat innovations in:

• Availability and duration of courses and programs;

• Instructional strategies for adults;

• Use of technology for on-line learning; and

• Alignment of institutions and systems.

While the innovations we highlight are certainly notrestricted to community colleges, they are more com-monly found in these institutions. For this reason (aswell as the nature of our own expertise), we have usedcommunity college examples to illustrate the following

approaches.6

More flexible structure and duration of coursesand programs

To address adult learners’ needs for flexible delivery oflearning, innovative postsecondary institutions are fol-lowing a path similar to that of for-profit schools, whenfeasible: more varied and flexible schedules; easier andmore individualized entry and exit options; and restruc-turing of two-year degree programs into shorter, creden-tial-granting modules that roll up into the full degree.

Flexible Scheduling Options

Nearly 70 percent of all higher education institutionsnow have course offerings that allow students to com-plete a degree by taking classes exclusively on nights andweekends. However, this meets just part of the need forscheduling flexibility. Many adults do shift work at nightor have better child care options during the day, and findtraditional daytime classes a better fit. In response tothese challenges, postsecondary institutions are increas-ingly offering adults:

• Classes that meet one night a week instead of two orthree;

• Classes that meet on weekends only;

• Accelerated program options that enable adult learnersto squeeze learning into available chunks of time;

• Courses and curriculum formats that are fully or par-tially self-paced;

• Distance learning and on-line options that do notrequire a physical presence of all students in the sameplace.

Institutions are also beginning to offer critical supportservices such as career counseling, library services, andadministrative functions at non-traditional times. Manyschools provide such services on line, along with someforms of instruction and tutoring on a 24-hour basis.


Sinclair Community College in Dayton, Ohio, which hasa large population of shift workers, has focused on flexibilityin scheduling. In some programs, courses are offered at timesconvenient to all three work shifts, including midnight to7:00 a.m. Sinclair also offers flexible times for students toaccess educational support. Faculty are required to holdoffice hours that are convenient to all shifts, some as late as3:00 a.m.

Flexible Entry, Exit and Reentry

Some postsecondary institutions have come up withstrategies to offer adult learners a menu of more flexibleways to enter and exit individual courses, programs andinstitutions. For example, a degree program can offerclearly defined, but varied, starting points for studentswho need English-language or basic reading, writing, andmath skills, or for students who are ready for college-levelwork but lack experience in the occupational or technicalfield they are entering. For adult students with moreexperience and skills than a traditional undergraduate,some colleges grant credit for previous knowledge,enabling them to enter programs at a more advancedpoint in the curriculum. The Council on Adult andExperiential Learning has been a pioneer for decades inthe use of models for assessing prior learning and granti-ng college credit for experience (CAEL 2005).

For students who return to school to acquire a skill setfor employment purposes, some institutions create non-traditional exit points other than established degree orcertificate programs. In these programs, students aregiven interim certificates that indicate completion of aparticular cluster of classes. This certification allows stu-dents to get the skills they need without having to takecourses that are less immediately relevant. It provides“stepping stones” that are recognizable to employers andother educational institutions.

In acknowledgement of the dynamic career and familylives of adult learners, some institutions are beginning toprovide flexible entry and exit points for an entire courseof study, allowing students who drop out to return to thesame course in another semester and pick up where theyleft off.

City College of San Francisco, a public two-year institu-tion with nine campuses, has long been the city’s designatedprovider of adult and vocational education. One out of threestudents begins in non-credit, developmental courses, andmore than 22,000 students speak English as their secondlanguage. CCSF established an “open entry, open exit” poli-

cy whereby students can drop out of a course and return inanother term, picking up where they left off, without havingto repeat the entire course.

Modularized curricula and certification

An important innovation with promise for adult learnersinvolves enabling students in credential programs to earncertificates or degrees in more manageable “chunks” oftime. This may involve either less total time in classes orshorter, sequenced modules that yield interim credentialsrecognized by employers and linked to career advance-ment. Such models make it easier for adult learners tomaximize credits and credentials during the times theycan afford to be in school.

Modularization frequently involves breaking existing cre-dential programs into segments that combine existingcourses in new ways. In an effort to address adult motiva-tion, modules typically put the technical skill classesupfront, move general education requirements into latermodules, and emphasize career development early so thatstudents understand possible and ultimate pathways.Well-constructed efforts to shorten and modularize offer-ings are attentive to the skills employers value, provideinterim credentials employers value, and roll up intolonger-term credentials that allow for further educationand economic advancement. They also tend to empha-size assessment of skills through competency attainment.

In some fields, such as information technology, well-defined career ladders exist, linked to industry-recog-nized certificates. In others, it is necessary to secureagreements with local employers and industry associa-tions so that they will recognize completion of a particu-lar sequence of courses in a long-term credential programas a milestone for career advancement.

Portland (OR) Community College is a leader in effortsto modularize the curricula and credentialing pathways foroccupational programs. PCC first redesigned its MachineManufacturing Technology Associate’s degree and certificateprograms into an articulated sequence of open entry-openexit modules. Courses are organized around skill sets identi-fied and validated by employers. Completion of modules isthrough demonstration of mastery of performance outcomeslinked to industry standards—and recognized by interimcertificates. Modules are designed to roll together into alonger-term credential. This model, which includes careerplanning early in the sequence and general education coursesnearer the end, is also used in accounting and facilities man-agement.


Redesign of Pre-collegiate Education

Modularization and structural strategies for accelerated

progress are also important in the organization and deliv-ery of developmental education, required of studentswho are not yet ready for college-level academic success.Restructuring developmental education into shorter andmore integrated pathways to credit programs is critically

important if adult learners are to persist to completion.Key elements of some promising new strategies in useamong some community colleges include:

• Integrating developmental skills instruction into occu-pational certificate programs, rather than requiringcompletion of developmental education before enteringthe skills program;

• Teaching developmental skills within a work-relatedcontext, tied to a course of study that leads to higher-wage employment in high demand sectors;

• Partnering with the non-college adult basic educationsystem to create a bridge from their programs into col-lege credential programs;

• Offering basic skill instruction to entry-level workers atworksites through distance learning and on-line tech-nology; and

• Accelerating progress through developmental educationcourses by increasing use of self-paced learning, tied toskill assessments that pinpoint weaknesses and targetinstruction to them, so students need only a few weeks’refresher.

Community College of Denver has revamped its develop-mental education courses to emphasize accelerated masteryof basic skills. An intensive GED lab for welfare recipientsmakes it possible for students with seventh-grade skills toearn a high school equivalency credential in four monthsrather than well over a year. Individualized learning targetswhat a student needs to learn to pass each of the five GEDtest sections, with a concurrent focus on test-taking and crit-ical skills. The college’s CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) toLPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) program enables workingadults at the lowest developmental math level to gain theskills they need to enter the LPN degree program in 24weeks, compared to the 45 weeks of a traditional develop-mental education sequence (Goldberger 2006).

More Adult-appropriate Pedagogy

Adult-Focused Teaching Methods

The Council on Adult and Experiential Learning (2005)

has developed a set of principles of effectiveness for serv-ing adult learners in higher education. CAEL emphasizesthe need for multiple methods of instruction—includingexperiential and problem-based methods—for adultlearners in order to connect curricular concepts to usefulknowledge and skills. Of particular power are methodsthat recognize learners’ individual differences and thatmodel the kind of learning that is expected at work(CAEL and ACE 1993). In many proprietary programs,students are typically organized into learning teams,enabling them to incorporate work experience into theirclasses. Learning objectives are clear and there are manyopportunities for assessment of both student learningand teaching quality.

According to the administrator at one for-profit technicalcollege:

[Our] approach is different because of how we teach.[We] provide an education for students who are notthat theoretically oriented to mathematics but whowant to pursue a career in technology. Due to these stu-dents’ particular orientation, they do best in a hands-onenvironment. . . . We do have theory here, but we try tomake the theory easier to understand through the use oflots of experiments [labs]… Students look through ourcurriculum and they see lots of labs and they say, “Oh, Ican learn from labs” (Bailey et al. 2003).

In keeping with this more practical orientation, for-profitcolleges and many innovative occupational programs intwo- and four-year colleges rely on instructors who arealso practitioners and have experience in their field. Infor-profit institutions, while introductory general educa-tion courses are usually taught as stand-alone courses,second-level “gen ed courses” and some electives—suchas Motivation and Leadership; Professional, Business, orTechnical Writing; Technology and Ethics—are frequent-ly integrated with career classes (Bailey et al. 2003).

Contextualized Learning that Takes Advantage ofWork Setting and Needs

The adult education field stresses the importance of con-textualized learning, which sets course instruction withinmeaningful academic, real life, and occupational con-texts. This approach enables learners to see more clearlythe relevance of their education by tying learning to tan-


gible, more immediate, results in terms of job perform-ance and opportunity.

To do this well, postsecondary institutions work closelywith employers who are looking for workers with partic-ular skills or want to upgrade the skills of their existingworkers. Postsecondary institutions are beginning toform strategic partnerships with individual employers

and employer associations so they can design curricula,projects, lessons, and assessments that maximize theinstitution’s ability to integrate job-related content intoinstruction, build on learners’ job-related knowledge andmotivations, and organize instruction to help studentslearn what they need to move forward in their futurecareers.

Partnerships between colleges and employers arestrengthening the ties between adult education and labormarket outcomes by:

• Enabling postsecondary institutions to keep abreast ofand adapt to changing employer and industrydemands;

• Recruiting non-traditional practitioner instructors withexperience and contacts in the field of study, broaden-ing their role beyond teacher to include career mentor;

• Offering adult student internships and externships toground their learning in the context of work;

• Delivering instruction at workplaces when employersrequest it;

• Revising curriculum and program content to promotecontextualization of developmental education, particu-larly in occupational and skills programs; and

• Making it easier for working adults to fit college cre-dential coursework into their busy schedules.

Genesis Health Care Systems, the largest extended careprovider in Massachusetts, and WorkSource, Inc., a labormarket intermediary, are partnering with a consortium ofcommunity colleges to operate a career advancement pro-gram designed to help entry-level workers in CNA, house-keeping, and dietary positions move on tracks toward better-paying LPN and RN jobs in two parts of the state. Thisprogram is made possible by the state’s Extended Care CareerLadder Initiative, designed to meet an acute nursing short-age in the long-term care industry and provide inter-agencyfunding for career ladder pathways. The partnership pro-vides intensive career counseling and case management toincumbent employees and facilitates access to education and

training. The “Campus on a Campus,” on site at Genesis’sAgawam facility, provides a range of education and train-ing, including an LPN degree program. Employees meetwith career counselors to set career advancement goals andbegin to map an education plan to reach those goals(Goldberger 2006).

The Power of Technology to Increase FlexibleAccess and Accelerate Progress

At the heart of most innovative approaches to increasepostsecondary accessibility for adult learners is the powerof new information and education technologies. TheInternet, email, and videoconferencing create the oppor-tunity for learning to proceed in virtual rather than phys-ical space, in asynchronous schedules, within moremedia-rich environments, and with connections to work-places that might otherwise be more limited.

As noted in Section 1, the rise of the Internet has madeon-line distance learning a significant presence inAmerican postsecondary education. By early 2008, oneof every ten postsecondary students are likely to be par-ticipating in their education via on-line distance learning(Eduventures 2005d).

The diffusion of on-line courses and programs is likely toaccelerate: in March 2006, in a budget bill, Congresspassed a provision eliminating the “50 percent rule.”Instituted in 1992 in the wake of fraud investigations ofon-line institutions, this rule had required colleges todeliver at least half their courses on a campus to qualifyfor federal student aid. A waiver program created in 1998allowed exemptions for a few dozen colleges with on-lineprograms. Enrollments at eight colleges jumped 700 per-cent in six years (Dillon 2006).

The spread of on-line education—individual coursescombined with traditional classroom courses or whollyon-line programs—greatly increases the options avail-able. An extra course might be taken on line to comple-ment a classroom course, making it easier to gain creditsand advance. An on-line program might make it possiblefor a working adult to participate in higher education atnight, on weekends, or from varied locations.

The Center for Academic Transformation has shown thatthe redesign of college courses using instructional tech-nology can also improve quality, reduce cost, and resultin higher completion and persistence rates. A project toredesign large enrollment courses at both two- and four-year public institutions found that redesign that usedtechnology for on-line tutorials, continuous assessment


and feedback, on-demand support, increased interactionamong students, and clear milestones for learning founda 10 to 20 percent decrease in the drop-failure-withdraw-al rates and higher course completion rates, comparedwith traditionally taught courses at the same institutions.

At the same time, redesign is able to reduce the costs ofdelivery of large-enrollment classes and expand access tonew populations (Twigg 2005).

Alignment of Institutions and Systems

A student who is trying to squeeze the maximumamount of value from a short stint in higher educationcan ill afford setbacks, particularly those that end upcosting time and money because one institution does notrecognize learning from courses taken elsewhere. Foradult learners, the disconnects between institutions in agiven education sector—and across sectors—can be thetoughest obstacle to overcome and the most deflatingaspect of trying to advance educationally and economi-cally. As noted above, these problems are varied: theyexist between non-credit and credit programming withina single institution; academic and occupational courses,within an institution or across them; pre-collegiate adulteducation and college credit-granting programs; two andfour-year institutions; and between for-profit and moretraditional institutions.

Individual institutions can—and many do—addresssome of these obstacles to smooth and speedy studentprogress. They can:

Create career pathway models that make it easier tomove from credit to non-credit programs within anoccupational area. Career pathways are efforts to createclear road maps of how entry-level individuals, usuallyadults, can navigate a sequence of pre-college and col-lege-level technical and other courses that prepare themfor advancement in a particular industry or occupation.Negotiated through partnerships that include employers,adult basic education providers, and postsecondary insti-tutions, career pathways smooth the transitions thatenable adults to accelerate the earning of credentials thatemployers seek in fields such as information technology,allied health, hospitality, and early childhood education(Fitzgerald 2006).

Align credit and non-credit courses and divisions better.Many adult learners find their way to college initially in anon-credit course that they or their employer might wantthem to take. This can lead to an interest in moving intoa credit program. Colleges can make this transition easier

in a number of ways, such as better counseling and advis-ing for non-credit students and clear pathways from non-credit offerings into credit programs. Some schools offerthe same course in a credit and non-credit format, withcredit students having more assignments and require-

ments, but with non-credit students having the ability toopt for credit at the end of the course by taking a test onthe course material (Alssid et al. 2002).

Negotiate articulation agreements among institutionsin a region to accept courses in particular programsfor credit.These agreements are common in higher edu-cation, particularly between two- and four-year institu-tions (and between high schools and colleges), so thatstudents who transfer will know which courses that theytake will be given what kind of credit from the schoolthey move into. These agreements can be important toolsin helping students get the most out of courses they havetaken at different institutions (Jobs for the Future 2004).

Ultimately, though, flexibility and accelerated learningdemand action at a level above that of individual institu-tions and consortia of regional providers and employers.State policy is a critical arena in this regard. For example,state policy can help smooth some of the institutionaldiscontinuities and turf battles that often catch adults inthe middle. Take the case of articulation agreements:states with more centralized public higher educationsystems, such as North Carolina and Florida, havedeveloped a number of statewide articulation agree-ments. Florida, by having statewide course numberingand curricula, makes it easier for students to knowwhether their courses will be transferable to other insti-tutions in the state.

Or consider how states fund non-credit versus credit pro-grams. In a number of states, including Oregon, creditand non-credit courses are funded at the same reimburse-ment rate by the state. This minimizes the tendency tofocus all the attention on traditional courses and encour-ages more innovation and less of a divide between divi-sions within higher education institutions. The impact ofequal funding is significant. In Washington State, whichdoes not fund non-credit courses in the state communitycollege FTE formula, non-credit courses account for 3percent of the community college FTE. In neighboringOregon, in 1999-2000, 32 percent of the total FTE gen-erated by Oregon community colleges was non-credit(Warford 2002).


Kentucky has tried to minimize the discontinuitybetween non-credit and credit courses by helping stu-dents secure credit for developmental courses taught inthe state’s adult education system. The state has alsoturned a significant number of non-credit courses in its

community college and workforce system into creditofferings by adjusting curriculum and learning expecta-tions to align with both college and employer standards.

Beyond Institutional Innovation:Implications for Systems and Policy

The key to serving adult learners is providing them withopportunities to earn work-related postsecondary creden-tials with a maximum of flexibility, speed of mastery, anduseful learning. Market forces have led both for-profitand more traditional learning providers to seek new waysto serve this vibrant market more effectively.

However, as the adult higher education market evolves,new models are bumping up against rigidities not just ininstitutional practice, but also in the rules, regulatoryframeworks, and other policies that shape institutionsand their behavior.

We are at the beginning of complex debates and battlesover how these rules and policy frameworks—at the stateand federal level, but also in longstanding accountabilitymechanisms like accreditation—must change to accom-modate adult learners and their particular needs (whilesustaining strengths that have developed over time inserving more traditional students). The outcome of thesedebates and policy battles will play a significant role indetermining how well the existing higher education sys-tems and institutions ultimately will respond to adultlearner needs.

The kinds of flexible delivery systems and innovativeprogram structures described above raise a number ofvery serious challenges to the organization and businessmodels of traditional higher education that must beaddressed thoughtfully.

More Flexible Program Length and Scheduling:Can Financial Aid Systems Adjust?

As the next section explains, federal and state studentfinancial aid is far more easily accessed by traditional andfull-time students than adult learners, who typicallyattend school part time. As instructional delivery

becomes more flexible, competency-based, and cus-tomized to student needs, the “fit” between financial aidrules and student course-taking patterns weakens. Ifplanners and policymakers are not careful, flexible sched-uling can make it more difficult for students to qualify

for financial aid and to access aid across various smallermodules or “chunks” of a program, particularly if thosesegments do not explicitly constitute a credential pro-gram when reassembled as a whole package. This mis-match constrains institutions’ interest in and ability toexperiment with shorter and accelerated programs andcourses. As the next section suggests, alternative aid pro-grams that are a better fit with adult learning realitiesmight be needed.

Competency Assessment: Can Proficiencies beReconciled with Credit Hours?

Innovative adult learning programs—particularly thosethat are responsive to student needs for acceleration andemployer interest in particular technical or work-relatedskills—frequently base progress and credentialing ondemonstration of specific competencies. Courses aredesigned in shorter-than-semester chunks. Students earncredentials—whenever they are ready—by showing mas-tery of content or skills on self-paced exams, throughperformance assessment and other methods, not forcompleting a certain number of credit hours.

These models pose a challenge to the structure, organiza-tion, and business model that dominates traditionalhigher education, which is primarily funded on the basisof Full Time Equivalent enrollments in courses of specif-ic length. As learning becomes more centered on adultstudents’ needs and experiences, organizational andfinance models built around standardized course dura-tion may need to change, so they are better aligned withthe notion that adult learning will occur when the adultlearner has the time, not when the institution has pre-arranged it (Bonk and Kim 2004). The full implicationsof the emerging shift from institutional routine and con-venience to a flexible customer-responsiveness are onlybeginning to be understood.

Transfer of Credits: Can Greater Flexibility andAccess be Balanced with Academic QualityConcerns?

About 60 percent of undergraduates enroll in courses atmore than one institution during their college career,according to U.S. Department of Education researcherClifford Adelman (2004), a proportion that has risen


from 40 percent in 1970.7 This growing tendency totake courses at multiple institutions makes the ability to

transfer credits increasingly important for adult learners.Larger for-profit institutions like the University ofPhoenix use standardized curricula and course content:Phoenix can offer the same course across its many cam-puses without any questions about consistency and com-

parability (Berg 2005b). However, traditional institu-tions have long protected their right to accept or rejectcourses and credits from other institutions, in the nameof academic standards. (They also want to protect rev-enue, which can be threatened by more fluid transfers ofcredits across institutions.) A number of states, such asFlorida, have recently standardized course numberingand learning content, to make it easier for courses to beassessed as to the transferability of credits. However, pri-vate colleges are frequently more resistant; and in stateswhere public higher education is decentralized, individ-ual institutions typically retain the power to accept orreject credits from another institution. The transferabilityof credits is particularly difficult for students takingoccupational courses and sequences. Transferabilitybetween for-profit and traditional higher education insti-tutions is similarly fraught.

The balance between different public purposes needs tobe addressed carefully, but head-on. Those who viewcredit transfer primarily as an academic issue see the cur-rent practice of case-by-case faculty review of course andprogram standards as a critical protection of instructionalquality. Those who see transfer primarily as an accessibili-

ty issue focus on the need to promote flexible accumula-tion of learning and credits to meet the realities of adultenrollment patterns (Eaton 2005).

The question is: how can transfer policy advance bothgoals? How our nation—its states, regional and programaccreditation bodies, and institutions—responds to thiscomplex challenge will have a great impact on adultlearners’ ability to pursue coherent, yet flexible, learningpaths toward higher education credentials and valuableskills.

Technological Innovation: Would Adult LearnersBenefit from More Standardized Instruction andMore Customized Support Services?

The rapid expansion of technology use in higher educa-tion, particularly in for-profit institutions but also inmore traditional institutions, raises huge questions forthe future structure and organization of higher educa-

tion—and for the traditional conceptions of howinstruction and learning are delivered. In a provocativeessay, Dewayne Matthews, senior research director at theLumina Foundation for Education, argues that“[b]ecause of telecommunications and inexpensive com-

puting power, the content of the college curriculum israpidly becoming universally available at little or no costto the consumer” (Matthews 2005). Content is becom-ing a commodity and traditional college classroom deliv-ery is no longer the most efficient delivery method.Matthews argues that value will increasingly come notfrom the creation of content, but from its packaging anddelivery to meet the specific needs of particular groups ofindividuals.

If content costs can be reduced, this can free up resourcesfor customization of delivery methods—to workplaces,non-traditional venues, or in the home. It can also freeup resources for more effective and powerful supports forstudents—academic supports such as counseling, tutor-ing, mentoring, and advising, as well as social supportsthat can help students find services they need to stay inschool. As content becomes more standardized, thevalue-added of institutions might be their ability to sup-port students so they persist, complete, succeed, andmove on to meet their personal goals.

The implications are significant. Greater attention to thedemands of particular niche markets, such as groups ofemployers in particular industries or groups of studentswith particular basic or technical skill needs, will be criti-cal to the long-term viability of many higher educationinstitutions. In that environment, learner outcomes willbecome the coin of the realm. As the accountability sec-tion below argues, the measure of effectiveness will haveto be in the payoff in the labor market and in access tofuture further education and credentials. The competi-tive edge (and perhaps the relative investment ofresources) may shift away from the development ofcourse content to its packaging in a rich system of deliv-ery options and support systems.


Talking Points

Federal financial aid policies disadvantage workingadults who struggle to balance the conflicting demands ofwork, family, and college enrollment.

• Federal education loans are available only to studentsattending half time or more. Working adults are sel-dom able to maintain this pace of enrollment formore than one or two semesters.

• Pell grants are technically available even to less-than-half-time students, but the eligibility formula doesnot allow these students (as opposed to students whoare half-time or more) to count living expenses orother indirect costs as part of the cost of education.

• The practice of determining Pell eligibility based onthe previous year’s income penalizes working adultsseeking to return to school following layoffs andsharp reductions in income.

• Pell grants cannot be used for non-degree or non-credit programs that might otherwise be attractive toworking adults who want to improve specific job-related skills.

• Requirements to demonstrate “satisfactory progress”toward completion can be a barrier for those workingadults who can take only one or two courses at atime; the two- semesters-per-year limit can be aproblem for those trying to accelerate their waythrough programs.

• Even though working adults strongly prefer inten-sive, short-term programs, Pell grants pay only forprograms provided over a traditional 15-week basiswith a minimum of 16 credit hours.

• Pell grants can be used for distance learning pro-grams only if they lead to a degree; one-year or short-er certificate programs otherwise attractive to adultsare not eligible.

• New (1998) federal tax credits are not much help toworking adults. Less than 20 percent of the credits(which totaled $6.3 billion in 2003) are going toworking adults.

• Of the two tax credits, the generous one—the HopeScholarship—is only available to families of moretraditional students (half-time or more). TheLifetime Learning Tax Credit that was intended forworking adults is much less generous and is irrelevantfor millions of working adults whose lack of postsec-ondary education forces them into low-paying jobswhere tax credits are not useful.

State student aid polices generally follow federal eligibili-ty rules, severely limiting aid to less-than-half-time stu-dents.

• A majority of the states provide no grant aid to less-than-half-time students.

• A few states have more liberal, need-based formulasthat do not disadvantage students based on enroll-ment intensity.

• A few states provide grants to students in short-term,intensive, non-degree programs that would not beeligible under Pell.

• Almost all states have very early aid application dead-lines (March or April preceding the fall semester ofintended enrollment) that disadvantage adults whosework and family obligations discourage long-termplanning.

Federal workforce development programs—TANF andWIA—can sometimes pay for postsecondary study, buteligibility requirements and program restrictions posesharp limitations.

• Some states aggressively utilize TANF resources(including state MOE funds) for postsecondarystudy.

Section 3.

Affordability:New Strategies of Student Aid and Institutional FinancingAre Necessary to Support the Needs of Adult Learners


• Less than 40 percent of WIA funds are used for edu-cation and training.

• Proposed new “Career Advancement Accounts” offerstrong promise to boost postsecondary studies by theWIA-eligible population.

State institutional financing methods discourage pro-gramming that would be better suited to the needs ofworking adults.

• The shift toward tuition support and away from statesupport disadvantages those working adults with lim-ited resources and those not eligible for financial aid.

• FTE-based funding formulations can make part-timeadult students less attractive to colleges.

• State funding seldom supports non-credit course-work that is otherwise attractive to employers andtheir workers.

• The gap between “workforce development” and “aca-demic” programs is widening.

In order to meet the needs of adult learners, state andfederal governments should undertake a systemic redesignof student aid policies. Specific new directions to helpworking adults afford the postsecondary credentials theyneed for economic success might include:

• Recognizing more adequately in Pell grant distribu-tion formulas the educational costs facing workingadults and their interest in year-round study.

• Using aid policies to encourage short-term, intensiveprograms and innovative delivery mechanisms thatwill help underprepared working adults rapidlyacquire postsecondary credentials with immediatelabor market impact.8

• Providing federal loans, subsidized for the mostneedy, for working adults who have demonstratedtheir commitment and capacity for postsecondarystudy but are unable to complete college on a halftime or more basis.

• Encouraging states to apply their aid programs toworking adults in ways that complement federal sup-port.

• Modifying the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit (LLTC)to offer working adults parity with the more gener-ous credits available for traditional students throughthe Hope program.

• Making the LLTC credits available to low-incomeworking adults though new “refundability” provi-sions similar to those of the Earned Income TaxCredit.

Introduction

From the original enactment of the federal Higher

Education Act in 1965, federal and state student aid andinstitutional financing policies have been designed pri-marily for traditional students—dependent adolescentswho enroll full time in residential institutions immedi-ately after high school graduation and pursue traditionalprograms with traditional classroom models of programdelivery. As described in Section 1, such students are adeclining minority of postsecondary enrollment in bothcommunity colleges and four-year colleges (NCES2002).

Most adults attempting postsecondary education havejobs and families and are unable to enroll on a full-timeor even a half-time basis, especially over the 15-weeksemester model of traditional postsecondary education.Those who lack any postsecondary education and there-fore need it the most (about 60 percent of working adultsover age 24 have no credential beyond high school) tendto be employed in low-wage jobs that do not offeremployer supports or the time flexibility to pursue tradi-tional postsecondary opportunities. Yet because aid eligi-bility is based not just on need but also on enrollmentintensity, adult learners frequently find that they are inel-igible for student aid or that they can receive only nomi-nal amounts.

State institutional financing models offer little financialincentive to colleges to serve these part-time, workingadult students. Funding formulas that are based on full-time enrollment equivalency advantage those collegesthat have mostly full-time students and discourage betterattention to the needs of working adults. While workingadults do not necessarily require more expensive supportthan traditional students, it often costs the college moreto educate two half-time students than one full-time stu-dent (MDRC 2003). In addition, federal and state aidpolicies and state-based institutional financing systemshave tended to discourage compressed and acceleratedprogramming that would better meet the schedulingneeds and learning styles of many working adults(FutureWorks 2002).


If we are to respond more effectively to the challenges ofa 21st century economy, where the good jobs require cre-dentialed postsecondary skills and where competitivebusinesses need better educated workers, postsecondaryfinancing and student aid policies must change to better

serve those 65 million working adults who have no post-secondary credentials.

A Quick Primer on Federal Student Aid

The federal government provides student aid for postsec-ondary education in the form of grants, loans, and taxcredits.9 The grant programs and some of the loan pro-grams require a demonstration of financial need. Todetermine their eligibility for need-based aid, studentsand their families supply detailed financial informationusing a uniform process known as the Free Applicationfor Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), from which theDepartment of Education calculates the Expected FamilyContribution (EFC). Schools estimate their Cost ofAttendance (COA), subtract the EFC, and then workwith the student to at least partially bridge the gap withgrants, loans, and work-study as appropriate.

Grants: Under the federal Higher Education Act (HEA),there are two types of grants available to students whocan demonstrate financial need.10 The Federal Pell Grantis by far the largest program. In 2003-04, 5.1 millionstudents received an average award of $2,466, for a totalof $12.7 billion. The maximum grant is now set at$4,050 and the minimum award is $400. The FederalSupplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG)are awarded to undergraduate students with exceptionalfinancial need. In 2003-04, 1.2 million students receivedan average award of $615 for a total of $760 million.

SEOG awards range between a minimum of $100 and amaximum of $4,000. Both Pell and SEOG grants areavailable to students regardless of enrollment intensity,but the determination of need for less-than-half-timestudents differs from the calculation for those who are

half-time or more.

Loans:There are three federal student loan programs

under the HEA—the small “Perkins Loan” program forstudents with exceptional need who are enrolled full orpart time and two larger “Stafford Loan” programs forstudents who are enrolled at least half time.11 The FederalStafford Direct Loans come from the U.S. Department ofLabor and are delivered through the schools and repaid tothe schools. The Federal Family Education Stafford Loanscome from a bank, credit union, or other private lenderand are repaid to the lender or its collection agent. In2003-04, about $1.2 billion was loaned under the Perkinsprogram, and about $48.4 billion was loaned under thetwo Stafford programs. While the Perkins loans cannotexceed the unmet need of the student, the unsubsidizedStafford loans do not require a demonstration of need.However, students who have financial need after countingall other grant awards may receive a subsidized loan up tothe amount of that need. Under these subsidized Staffordloans, the federal government will pay the interest whilethe student is enrolled at least half time for the first sixmonths after the student leaves school (or reduces enroll-ment intensity to less than half time) and during any peri-od of deferment. Interest on the Perkins loan is set at 5percent. Interest on the Stafford Loans changes yearly; in2004-05 it was 3.37 percent for loans in repayment.There are annual and total limits that a student may bor-row under the Stafford Loan programs, as outlined in thechart below. (See Table 3.)

Table 3. Annual and Total Limits to Student Borrowing under Stafford Loan Program12

DependentUndergraduate Student

IndependentUndergraduate Student

Graduate andProfessional Student

1st Year $2,625* $6,625 $18,500 for eachyear of study

2nd Year $3,500** $7,500

3rd and 4th Year (each) $5,500 $10,500

Maximum Debt atGraduation

$23,000 $46,000 $138,500 (includesundergraduate loans)

* As of July 1, 2007, this will increase to $3,500.** As of July 1, 2007, this will increase to $4,500.


The prohibition against federal loans, subsidized orunsubsidized, for less-than-half-time enrollment does notmean that many working adults taking only a few cours-es at a time do not borrow; it simply means that theymust borrow from higher-cost, private sources. In fact,

for all categories of students, private, bank-based borrow-ing is growing at a very rapid pace. From just less than$1.3 billion in 1995-96, private borrowing increased toalmost $10.6 billion by 2003-04 (College Board 2004).This data may not capture much private lending that isnot certified by or directly received by a college or uni-versity, and it does not include credit card debt (ACE2004). While there is little hard data about private col-lege debt incurred by working adults, research suggeststhat independent students who maintain their ownhouseholds rely more heavily on credit card debt tofinance college expenditures than their younger, depend-ent peers (ACE 2004).

Tax Credits:There are two major tax credit programs—the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning TaxCredit (LLTC)—established under the Taxpayer ReliefAct of 1997 that directly offset the cost of postsecondaryeducation for eligible families.13 Both programs are tiedto similar family income levels; the credits begin to phaseout at modified adjusted gross income levels above$43,000 for single filers and above $87,000 for joint fil-ers. They phase out fully at income levels above $53,000and $107,000, for a single return and a joint return,respectively. Unlike the Earned Income Tax Credit, theseprograms are not refundable; that is, the taxpayer musthave tax liability equal to or greater than the amount ofthe credit for which they may qualify. Low-income fami-lies and individuals may not have enough income toqualify for the credits.

The Hope Scholarship provides a tax credit of up to$1,500 for each of the first two years of postsecondaryeducation. Depending on family income, tax filers canclaim a credit equal to 100 percent of the first $1,000and 50 percent of the next $1,000 spent on qualifiedexpenses (limited to tuition and fees and net of anygrants received) for themselves and/or any (each) of theirdependents. Students must be pursuing a formal aca-demic credential, and they must attend at least half timeto qualify. Because eligible costs almost always exceed$2,000 for half-time or more attendees, most fullyincome-eligible taxpayers are almost always able toobtain the full amount of the Hope credit.

The LLTC allows students (or taxpayers claiming the stu-dents as dependents) who are studying beyond the firsttwo years of undergraduate coursework, or those takingcourses on a less-than-half-time basis, to claim a credit of20 percent on the first $10,000 of tuition and fee expens-

es (net of grants received) up to a maximum credit pertaxpayer (family) of $2,000. Those claiming the LLTCneed not be pursuing a recognized credential. Full-timeor more-than-half-time students frequently have eligibleexpenses approaching or even exceeding $10,000. Less-than-half-time students, especially those attending publiccommunity colleges, would almost certainly not incurtuition and fee costs that would result in a substantialcredit.

In 2001, 7.4 million taxpayers received $5.2 billion incredits—44 percent of those taxpayers received $3.1 bil-lion in Hope credits, 52 percent received $1.7 billion inLLTC credits, and an additional 5 percent of themreceived $.47 billion in benefits from both programs.About 35 percent of the credits went to households withannual adjusted gross incomes below $30,000. The meancredit for Hope recipients in 2001 was $969 and themean for LLTC recipients was $432. Filers who receivedthe credit for their own/spouse’s expenses but did notindicate on their tax return that they were primarily stu-dents (that is, they indicated an occupation other thanstudent) received less on average—$881 mean for theHope and $361 mean the LLTC.

Barriers to Federal Higher EducationAct Financial Aid for Working Adults

In its 2002 report Held Back: How Student Aid ProgramsFail Working Adults, FutureWorks determined that therewere about two million independent students enrolled inpostsecondary institutions who worked full time, consid-ered themselves employees rather than students, and haddependent children (Bosworth and Choitz 2002). Ofthese, almost half (47 percent) were enrolled on a less-than-half-time basis. (As might be expected, only 15 per-cent of these full-time working adults with dependentswere enrolled full time.) Of those enrolled less-than-half-time, 28 percent earned less than 200 percent of the fed-eral poverty level for a family of four, a family incomelevel that would almost certainly make dependent stu-dents Pell-eligible. However, only 7.7 percent of themreceived any federal, state, or institutional aid. Only 3.3


percent of them received Pell grants (they received anaverage award of $813); 1.7 percent received state aid;and just less than 3 percent received institutional aid.Because they were less-than-half-time students, none ofthese low-income students were eligible for federal loans.

However, the limited, almost negligible, participation ofworking adults in the Pell program is not a simple matter

of eligibility per se; rather it is a consequence of how theaid is calculated and the kind of programs for which itmay be applied. There are several ways that the Pell for-mula negatively affects less-than-half-time working stu-dents.

Indirect education expenses:The Pell formula calculatesthe Cost of Attendance differently for students attendinghalf time or more versus those attending less than halftime. For students attending half time or more, the for-mula counts both direct expenses—tuition, fees, booksand supplies, dependent care expenses, and transporta-tion—and indirect expenses—most importantly, roomand board, but also student loan fees, study-abroad pro-grams, and even the cost of obtaining a computer. Less-than-half-time students can count only the direct expens-es, specifically not including room and board, towardstheir costs of attending school. As a result, the real costsof attending school are underestimated for less-than-half-time students; they are not awarded a proportional shareof what they received when attending full-time, but typi-cally receive less, or no aid at all. This creates a studentaid “cliff ” for those who were attending half or full timebut are sometimes forced to drop down to quarter-timestatus for a semester. This is especially true for studentsattending low-cost institutions, whose indirect costs forrent and food often exceed direct costs such as tuitionand fees.

An Illinois study found that a majority of less-than-half-time students in any semester actually attend half time ormore for the rest of their college careers, averaging 7.6credits per term. They drop down to less-than-half-timebecause of interruptions in child care, transportationproblems, or conflicting work schedules. Eliminating aidfor these students causes significant problems: it discour-ages them from continuous enrollment and decreasestheir likelihood of persistence and completion (Centerfor the Study of Education Policy and the IllinoisStudent Assistance Commission 2004).

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 permits room andboard costs for less-than-half-time students to be includ-ed in their Cost of Attendance, using the current statuto-ry room and board requirements. However, the use of aroom and board cost allowance for these students is lim-

ited to not more than three semesters. This changebecame effective on July 1, 2006.

Lack of satisfactory progress: Postsecondary institutionshave the discretion to deny Pell aid to students based ona lack of “satisfactory progress” toward completion. Mostschools establish both qualitative and quantitative stan-dards that typically include a minimum grade point aver-age and the steady accumulation of credits toward com-pletion. For working adults who might be forced by jobor family considerations to drop out for a semester, andwho in any case often enroll less-than-half-time, thesestandards can constitute a tough barrier. Two or threeunder-average grades in succession, or feeling forced todrop a course and then not being able to “double-up” thenext semester, can quickly jeopardize aid eligibility. Evenwith decent grades, working students enrolled part timemay not be able to keep up a pace of enrollment thatallows them to make what their college deems satisfacto-ry progress in their program. As a result, they may bedenied Pell aid.

Sudden changes in income: Eligibility and need for feder-al financial aid are calculated according to the previousyear’s income. This presents a special problem for dislo-cated workers who might otherwise be inclined to enrollquickly in programs leading to new skills and new jobopportunities. While most colleges give their financialaid administrators discretion to allow estimates of cur-rent-year income to be used under special circumstances,suddenly dislocated workers unaccustomed to navigatingthe complexities of postsecondary education bureaucra-cies are often too quickly discouraged by apparent regula-tory constraints to ask for special consideration.

The two-semester limit: Pell grants are available for onlytwo semesters each year. Working adult students whoenroll on a less-than-half-time basis for the two regularsemesters are forced to make do without aid or to sit outthe summer even if they are prepared to take one or twocourses. (Full-time students who wish to accelerate theirpath toward completion are hampered by this regulationas well.) Further, even if students only receive a Pell grantfor one term, they are eligible to receive a Pell grant forthe summer term only if their summer enrollment statusis full-time.


Non-degree and non-certificate programs: In order to beeligible for Pell funding, individuals must be considered“regular students.” This criterion requires that studentsbe enrolled in programs leading to a degree or certificate.However, many working adult students enroll in school

in order to obtain job-specific skills; they do not intendto pursue a degree or formal academic certificate.Frequently they enroll in vocationally and occupationallyfocused non-credit courses that are offered through con-tinuing education departments at times that fit theirwork schedule better than for-credit courses. Often thesestudents are seeking skills and knowledge that wouldhelp them pass an industry-certified examination leadingto an industry-recognized certification. These certifica-tions have been quite popular for several years in com-puter hardware service and repair and in software appli-cations, but they also include specific training applicableto such diverse occupations as automotive service, healthand nutrition, electrical installation and repair, real estatesales and management, welding, and appliance repair.These students are not considered regular students andtherefore would not be eligible under Pell to receive agrant to help them with their skill development.

Program eligibility: Non-traditional students, such asworking adults, frequently find it difficult to attend col-lege in traditional schedule formats because of competingdemands of work and family. Postsecondary institutionscould respond to these students’ needs by breakinglonger college programs into shorter modules or com-pressing longer programs into shorter, more intensiveformats that can be completed as students have time.However, such modules or compressed programs can beineligible for financial aid because of their shorter length.Pell’s “eligible program” criteria stipulate that Pell-eligiblestudents must attend courses that meet for a minimumnumber of total hours. Federal student aid regulationsrequire that in order to be Pell-eligible, programs mustprovide at least a 15-week program that offers 600 clockhours, 16 semester or trimester hours, or 24 quarterhours. Shorter programs that offer a minimum of 300clock hours over a 10-week program may be eligible forfederal loan participation, but not for Pell grants.

Because concerns about aid eligibility tend to drive pro-gram structures, most colleges do not provide short-term,for-credit courses that require fewer than the mandatedminimum hours, even though they may help workersdevelop job skills quickly. Programs available on a non-credit basis are not eligible for federal aid.

Limits on distance learning: Pell also places restrictionson correspondence and on-line courses, including deny-ing Pell eligibility for correspondence courses that lead toa certificate, as opposed to a degree. These restrictionslimit the potential of promising new approaches to reach

students for whom traditional instruction is notaccessible.

Working Adults and the LifetimeLearning Tax Credit

When the two federal tax credits for postsecondary edu-cation were first introduced in the Taxpayer Relief Act of1997, it was suggested that they would complement eachother by targeting different groups of students. TheHope Scholarship was intended to make traditional post-secondary education more affordable to the children ofmiddle-income families by offering a $1,500 tax creditfor each of the first two years of college. Available foronly two years, and of full consequence only to familieswith at least a few thousand dollars of federal taxliability,14 it explicitly favors families of dependent stu-dents attending colleges and universities on a full-timebasis. It requires at least half-time study and supportsonly pursuit of a conventional academic degree or certifi-cate.

The Lifetime Learning Tax Credit was targeted moreexplicitly at helping working adults develop career-build-ing skills. It is not limited to two years; it does notrequire half-time enrollment; and it does not require pur-suit of an academic degree or certificate. On the otherhand, it is also available to more traditional students—those in their junior or senior year of college and thosepursuing graduate studies.

A 2004 report by FutureWorks concluded that workingadults were not gaining as much benefit from the LLTCprogram as was hoped at its introduction. First, accord-ing to the 2001 Household Education Survey, most stu-dents simply did not even know of the education taxcredits—only 17 percent of working adults without aBachelor’s degree had heard of either Hope or LLTC(Choitz, Dowd, and Long 2004). On the other hand, itappears that of those who do file for the LLTC, most doappear to be working adults. About 80 percent of thosewho claim the LLTC claim the credit for their own ortheir spouse’s educational expenses, and of those 82 per-cent did not indicate “student” as their occupation.


However, the amount of credit these working adult tax-payers actually received was very modest—on average,they claimed just $361 in 2001 (the most recent year forwhich research has been done). Those who sought theLLTC on behalf of a dependent received an average of

$536 in credits, the same amount as those who claimed iton their own behalf but listed their occupation as “stu-dent.” Effective credits under Hope appear to be muchhigher. Taxpayers who claimed Hope for a dependentreceived an average of $1,104, while those who claimedit for themselves or their spouses received an averageof $936.

In 2001, the Hope and LLTC resulted in about $5.2 bil-lion in tax credits. Less than 20 percent of that amountappears to have gone to working adults pursuing educa-tion or training (Choitz et al. 2004). The total tax creditshave climbed over the past few years to about $6.3 bil-lion in 2004, but it seems unlikely that the share of thecredits going to working adults has increased beyond thatfound in 2001.

This underscores another fundamental issue in theimpact of the tax credits on working adults: most of thetax subsidy goes to middle-income rather than low-income families. This is as true for LLTC as it is forHope. Only 36 percent of those “non-student” taxpayersclaiming the 2001 LLTC for themselves or their spousereported adjusted gross incomes below $30,000, andonly 17 percent had incomes below $20,000.

There are two reasons for this skewed impact. First andmost obviously, the majority of working adults whomight benefit most from the tax credit programs (thosewith no previous postsecondary education) do not enrollat least half time and are therefore ineligible for Hope.Second, even if they can manage half time or moreenrollment intensity and qualify for Hope, their limitedtaxable income makes these credits much less relevant.Finally, to the extent they seek benefits only under theLLTC, the tax credits are far less generous and are stillreduced by their limited tax liability.

State Student Aid Programs

State-financed undergraduate grant aid programs haveincreased consistently in current dollar terms over the

past several years, from about $2.9 billion in 1994-95, toover $5.7 billion in 2003-04. Non need-based grantsincreased rapidly, doubling as a share of that total andnow constituting about $1.5 billion. Still, the need-basedprograms alone increased over 100 percent in that 10-year period. In addition to these grants, states providedanother $1.2 billion in loans, loan forgiveness, work-study, tuition waivers, and other non-grant programs in2003-04. All the states have some form of direct studentaid and some are quite large—in 2003-04, 18 states hadgrant programs of over $100 million, 11 of those wereover $200 million, and six were over $300,000.

On the basis of need-based grant dollars per undergradu-ate full-time equivalent (FTE), New York had by far thelargest program in 2003-04, allocating $1,094 per FTE.The average among all the states was $378. New Jersey,Pennsylvania, and Illinois also spent more than twice thatnational average. However, on the basis of grant expendi-tures as a percentage of total higher education expendi-tures, South Carolina led the states, followed byVermont, New York and Georgia, all at more than twicethe national average.

It might be hypothesized that because the states are moredirectly or more immediately influencing the changingeconomic circumstances of working adults in need ofpostsecondary education, the state-based student aid pro-grams would demonstrate greater diversity of programstructure and more attention to the financial needs ofnon-traditional students. In its 2002 study, FutureWorksdid find a number of state programs offering direct aid tonon-traditional, working adult students. Only two states(Illinois and Virginia) had established special programsto focus directly on the less-than-half-time students.However, six other states had created special programsfor part-time students for which less-than-half-time stu-dents were eligible, and a number of other states did notdiscriminate on the basis of enrollment intensity in theirgeneral aid programs.15

Most states determine the level of their award by usingthe same needs determination procedures as are used inthe Pell program, often with the same unfortunate conse-quences for less-than-half-time adults, whose room andboard costs are not included. However, a few states werefound to have more liberal, need-based formulas that


allowed working adults to qualify for more aid by count-ing living expenses, child care, and transportation costs.While most states simply follow the federal guidelines fordetermining eligible programs (length of program, con-tact hours, etc.), FutureWorks found that several states

provided grant awards to students in short-term, inten-sive, non-degree programs that would not be eligibleunder Pell.

On the other hand, FutureWorks also found that earlyfinancial aid application deadlines imposed a significantbarrier for working adults. Commonly, applicants forstate aid (and institutional aid) must complete and sub-mit the required federal forms by March or April beforethe fall semester in which the student would enroll. Suchdeadlines do not work well for working adults, whosework and family schedules seldom encourage such long-range planning. As a result, aid grants for most statestend to go to traditional-aged students and full-timeenrolled students and are less likely to be awarded tonon-traditional students (St. John and Tuttle 2004).

In 2003-04, 11 states surveyed by the NationalAssociation of State Student Grant and Aid Programsreported that they provided state-financed loans toundergraduates. Most of these programs require half-time attendance, but a few states provide loans to stu-dents taking only one three-credit-hour course.

Federal Workforce DevelopmentPrograms: TANF and WIA

The federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families(TANF) program assists states to move people off publicassistance and into work. TANF requires that each stateengage at least 50 percent of assistance recipients in“work activities.” The legislation provides that vocationaltraining is an allowable work activity, but limits trainingto 12 months and forbids states from allowing more than30 percent of the work participation requirements to bemet by individuals in vocational training or attendinghigh school.

Under TANF, states must supplement to match federalfunds with at least 75 percent of what they had beenspending for welfare when TANF was enacted in 1996.This required state expenditure is known as the states’Maintenance of Effort (MOE). The TANF law permitsstates to spend from their MOE for education and train-ing without being limited to the 30 percent of work par-ticipation requirement or the 12-month length of pro-

gram requirement. States are also permitted to reducetheir 50 percent work participation requirements by thepercentage that they have reduced their welfare caseloadsince TANF was enacted in 1996.

States may define “vocational education” to include aca-demic programs offered at postsecondary institutions,but the 12-month limitation usually precludes enroll-

ment in degree programs, even at the Associate level.Therefore, most TANF recipients in postsecondary pro-grams are participating in one-semester or two-semesterprograms, typically resulting in a certificate rather than adegree. A few states use their MOE funds to effectivelywaive that 12-month limit for some individuals, enablingthem to complete a degree (MDRC 2001).

These restrictions on the use of TANF resources only forshorter-term programs have had the effect of inducingsome community colleges to develop alternative andmore flexible programs and delivery models. In a fewstates (California, Washington, and Oregon), TANFfunds were allocated to community colleges specificallyto design shorter classes and training programs, increas-ing weekend and evening offerings and developingtighter linkages with the regional labor market to helpassure that completers would find their way quickly togood jobs. Some of these new programs are reserved forthe TANF population and, because of their length andcontact hours, they would not meet the requirements ofthe Pell grants or Stafford loans. In other cases, however,innovations that serve TANF eligible individuals alsohelp other working adults by offering modularized andcarefully sequenced programs that can lead to a degreebut also have labor market value in “chunks” short of adegree (MDRC 2001).

Reliable data about the number of adults participatingunder TANF in postsecondary vocational training ordegree-oriented programs is not readily available.Analysis of TANF spending indicates that combinedstate (MOE) and federal funding for education andtraining activities was about $494 million in 2003, themost recent year for which data is available (CLASP2005).

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 guides fed-eral workforce investments, including those for job train-ing, adult literacy, and vocational rehabilitation. In addi-tion to other major provisions that establish a system of


state and local planning, provide for universal access toemployment and career development services, and facili-tate intensive services (assessment, job readiness, casemanagement) to dislocated and disadvantaged youth andadults, WIA also provides training for eligible individuals

by certified education/training providers through the useof Individual Training Accounts or vouchers. Statesdecide who will be eligible for ITAs. WIA requires thatlow-income and public assistance recipients be given pri-ority for service, but states have broad flexibility to setpriorities or to allow local boards to set priorities.

Due to the decentralized administration of WIA, there islittle information available on training activities, andespecially on training outcomes. A 2005 GAO reportexamining data from 2003 concluded that about $929million was expended on training by local boards fortraining programs enrolling about 416,000 individuals,323,000 of those in occupation programs. (This GAOestimate is controversial. According to the U.S.Department of Labor, about 200,000 people completeWIA-funded training annually.) According to the GAO,only about 38 percent of the funds that were availablethrough local boards to services to WIA-eligible individ-uals were spent on training (GAO 2005). Of course, inaddition to these funds the Department of Labor hasprovided over $3 billion of Welfare-to-Work grants and awide variety of other competitive grants to WorkforceInvestment Boards and their local partners over the pastseveral years.16

The Department of Labor has proposed a new approachto funding training for WIA-eligible individuals. It pro-poses to consolidate four major funding streams—theWIA Adult, Dislocated Worker, Youth, and EmploymentService Programs—into one single grant to states. Thestates would be required to allocate at least 75 percent oftheir grants to individuals in need of education andtraining. DOL estimates that about 800,000 peoplewould receive these “Career Advancement Accounts.”The maximum amount of an account would be $3,000for one year, and the accounts could be renewed for oneadditional year. The remaining funds would be used toprovide core employment services and related activities atOne-Stops and for administrative costs. The President’s2007 budget proposes about $3.4 billion to fund theseaccounts and employment services.

DOL proposes that these accounts would be available toadults and out-of-school youth entering or reentering theworkforce or transitioning between jobs and to incum-

bent workers in need of new skills to remain employed orto move up career ladders. States would have flexibility toestablish additional criteria for eligibility priorities.Unlike the case with Department of Education pro-grams, use of these funds would not be limited to post-

secondary institutions certified by the Secretary. Rather,the states would be allowed to establish eligibility for par-ticipation and accountability standards for thoseproviders. To the extent that Pell-eligible individuals usedtheir account for Pell-eligible education, the careeradvancement funds would supplement, not replace Pellfunds. However, these funds might be expected to spurthe development of specialized programs not now eligibleunder Pell or other federal grants or loans. They wouldbe available for individuals studying less than half timeand for programs of less than 10-week duration.

Institutional Financing forPostsecondary Education

Two issues in institutional funding dominate discussionof postsecondary education finance: (1) the total amountof funding for higher education; and (2) the expressionof public policy priorities in funding decisions—i.e.,what dollars are available to invest in education and whatthe public should get for its investment. Each factor hasdistinct impact on higher education’s capacity to provideservices to adult students; collectively, they shape theaccess to and success in postsecondary education forworking and lower income adult students.

The Overall Flow of Revenues to HigherEducation and Impacts on Adult Students

Three categories of revenue provide support for publichigher education institutions: state institutional financeallocations, tuition, and other funds (including federaland private). Tuition and state institutional financing areinversely related: as state allocations have fallen (or failedto keep pace with costs) tuition costs have risen. In gen-eral terms, tuition costs are determined by subtractingthe amount of institutional funding from the total costsof education. Institutional financing for postsecondaryeducation in the United States comes from appropria-tions and allocations of state funds. State funding for thegeneral operating costs of postsecondary education is farlarger than revenue from federal funds. Most federal dol-lars for postsecondary education generally flow throughfinancial aid and loans to students, who then use thesefunds for tuition. Some federal funds are provided in theform of restricted grants to institutions for specific pur-


poses, such as research or facilities. Other revenues tocolleges and universities come from philanthropicsources and may or may not be for restricted purposes.

States derive an overall budget and appropriation forhigher education based on calculations of what’s possible,given tax revenues, and shaped by the operating needs inthe postsecondary system. In general, states decide the

amount of support to education using allocation formu-lae and assumptions of base costs in two-year colleges,four-year colleges, and research universities. The mostimportant factor in any formula is the number of full-time students or full-time-equivalent students enrolled atan institution; this factor is then adjusted by a range ofothers, including a measure of base costs, increases, spe-cial services, and special programs (Jones 2003; Centerfor Community College Policy 2000). The two impor-tant characteristics of institutional financing are themethods of calculating funding (based on enrollmentssuch as FTE formulas) and the impact of trends indeclining amounts of funding over time.

According to State Higher Education ExecutivesOrganization, as higher education FTE enrollmentsincreased from about seven to ten million studentsbetween 1980 and 2004,17 educational appropriationsper FTE declined from about $6,100 in 1980 to $5,750in 2004. This is the lowest level of per FTE funding since1983, and down from a high of nearly $6,900 in 2001,for a sharp three-year decline of nearly 17 percent.18 It istrue that state funding for education grew considerablyin dollar amounts during this 25-year period, but theincreases were eclipsed by growth in the number of stu-dents and in the costs of higher education. Between 2001and 2004, total postsecondary revenues per FTEremained almost flat, but enrollment grew by 11.8 per-cent and costs increased by 10.3 percent (Lingenfelter,Wright, and Bisel 2005). In community colleges, stateappropriations (not including local tax allocations)accounted for an average of nearly 44 percent of themajor sources of revenue in 1981, but by 2003 this pro-portion amounted to 33 percent (NCES 2004).

Although there is considerable variation by state, legislat-ed funds for higher education declined during the lasteconomic recession and are not recovering as quickly astheir cyclical history would predict. In absolute terms,state financing for higher education fell by $2.5 billion injust two years, from 2002 to 2004, and several states cuteducation budgets by more than 10 percent (Kane andOrszag 2004).

State spending on education is highly cyclical, but long-term trends of higher education’s share of state expendi-tures show consistent decline. Higher education’s share ofstate’s general fund spending fell from 15 percent in1987, to 12 percent in 1998 (Zumeta 2005). Other

means-tested or mandated expenditures (notably,Medicaid and corrections) create unavoidable demandson state funds, and these may now be crowding out morediscretionary allocations of funds to education (Jones2003).

Declining appropriations of funds relative to steadilyincreasing education costs leads to tuition hikes. State-appropriated funds now make up a smaller proportion oftotal per student costs than in the last 15 years, as tuitionincreases shift the cost of education from public funds toindividual obligations (and student financial aid).However, there are often political and social constraintson how much tuition is allowed to increase in public col-leges. In general, tuition increases in public institutionsdo not completely replace losses of state allocations. Thisinevitably results in both an overall decline of resourcesavailable to the institution and more requirements onstudents and their families to finance, through loans andgrants to cover tuition, a higher proportion of costs ofattendance.

Tuition revenue as a proportion of higher education rev-enue is now at its highest levels and has risen more quick-ly than any other source of education revenue. Between1980 and 2000, higher education tuition increased by117 percent, while state government expenditures rose by24 percent (National Center for Public Policy andHigher Education 2003). In 2004, higher educationtuition stood at 36 percent of total revenue per FTE,compared to 26 percent in 1991. While community col-lege tuition still averages less than $2,000 a year, it hasrisen 33 percent between 1992 and 2002 (NationalCenter for Public Policy and Higher Education 2003).Recent trends in tuition financing show that families atall income levels are accumulating more educational debtrelative to total income in order to pay for education,and the composition of student financial aid packages isshifting toward a higher proportion of debt rather thangrants or needs-based-aid. Student aid grants havedeclined from 52 percent of financial aid packages in1981, to 39 percent in 2001 (National Center for PublicPolicy and Higher Education 2004).


How states finance postsecondary education has severalimplications for adult student access and participation inhigher education. The following points are not exhaus-tive but do identify some of the critical impacts on adultstudents, and lower income adult students in particular.

FTE-based funding formulations can make part-timeadult students less attractive to colleges. The funding for-

mulas that states use to calculate the flow of support tohigher education are shaped idiosyncratically by legisla-tive politics, institutional history, and policy influencesthat accumulate over time. Most states utilize a fundingformula to determine either an overall appropriation forpostsecondary funding or an allocation (between institu-tions) of already appropriated funds in consolidatedhigher education funding. Despite the variety of formu-las and factors considered in the equations, nearly allfunding formulas include full-time-equivalent enroll-ments as the overwhelmingly determinant feature offunding determination (Center for Community CollegePolicy 2000). The greater the number of studentsenrolling in higher education programs, the greater theamount of revenue flowing to the institutions.

Full-time-equivalency-based funding formulas can placepressure on colleges to promote enrollment growth at theexpense of services that support student retention, per-sistence, and completion. Thus schools may focus onfront-loading new enrollments and may lose manyenrollees because of a lack of investment in appropriatesupport services and advising. This can have a sharpimpact on non-residential adult students, who oftendepend on ancillary support to sustain their education.For adults, who are often part-time students, the servicesthat promote persistence and completion and help themto manage work, family, and education demands are par-ticularly important. Adult students report the centralityof services around obtaining financial aid, advising, andspecial programs to aid them as important in helpingthem manage their education and stay enrolled (Matus-Grossman 2004).

Reliance on enrollments as a source of revenue tends todiminish the revenue value of adult students to an insti-tution. Because over half of all adult students participatein education less than half time, it typically takes moreadult students than traditional students to comprise a

population of FTE students (Cook and King 2005).Under FTE funding formula, there is an implicit valuefor traditional students over adult students; traditionalstudents may simply be more valuable to schools andcost less to enroll and maintain than adult and low-

income adult students (Carnevale and Deroschers 2004).Schools may thus devote greater support for marketing,information, and supportive services to enroll traditionalstudents.

Declining state funding for education discourages smartprogramming for working adults. Downward pressureson state allocations for general operations strain thecapacity of institutions to sustain critical services or tooffer innovative services upon which adult studentsdepend. Declines in operational support limit an institu-tion’s capacity for growing innovative curricula targetedto adult students, supporting the remediation that manyrequire, or investing in new educational delivery methodsthat better fit the learning styles and constraints of work-ing adults.

Promising directions in educational delivery, such ascompressed curricula, hybridized course structures, andaccelerated degree programs can benefit adult students incommunity colleges by making it more feasible and effi-cient to schedule classes, attend at convenient times, andcomplete a degree. Over the short run, however, suchprograms require developmental expenses and increasecosts due to additional services (e.g., additional studentadvising time or different hours for the financial aidoffice). Without a mechanism to account for these addi-tional development costs in the funding formula, collegesnow have a disincentive to either invest in or offer theservices.

Shifting the proportions of overall costs to tuition revenuepenalizes working adults who face greater barriers to aideligibility.The overall financial cost of education in theform of tuition to individuals is a major barrier to manymoderate and low-income adults (Matus-Grossman2004). Shifting proportionately more costs towardtuition to compensate for declines in institutional fund-ing may create a complex impact on the ability of adultstudents to participate in education. Broadly, it makesattending college more difficult for all adult students, butfor different reasons depending on their socio-economicstatus. Working adults with moderate family incomes aresensitive to total tuition costs because they may be out-side of the limits for maximum needs-based financial aid.They bear more of the direct cost of tuition increases. At


community colleges, working adult students, whoseincomes would disqualify them for grants and whoseless-than-full-time enrollment may make them ineligiblefor full financial aid, may be forced to choose betweenmaintaining family supports and covering tuition, even

with marginal increases in tuition costs.

Lower income adult students, on the other hand, depend

more heavily on financial aid programs and loans thanany other group of students. These lower income stu-dents often express considerable reluctance to take onsizeable debt, though there is not a clear picture of whatan unacceptable debt level threshold might be (Matus-Grossman 2004). Thus, increased reliance on tuition andfinancial aid for adult students may discourage someworking adults from enrolling or completing their educa-tion, and may, for lower income adults, pose unaccept-able levels of debt.

Public Policy Priorities ThroughPostsecondary Finance

As the perception of the economic role of higher educa-tion in contributing to economic development and thepreparation of a skilled workforce has evolved, appropria-tions and allocations of public funds now come withmore explicit expectations of results and outcomes. Somestates now use performance measures to shape the alloca-tion of funds toward public policy priorities, such asoccupational preparation or contributions toward eco-nomic development and job growth. Some attention isnow being paid to higher education efficiency, and thereis much more focus on performance outcomes such asgraduation rates, reducing the time to graduate, anddegrees attained.

As more attention is given to performance measures andto shaping educational policy through financial alloca-tion mechanisms, there is a greater need for understand-ing the differential impact of these mechanisms on differ-ent groups of students. In particular, the mechanismsmust clearly reflect the goals, and reflect an accurateunderstanding of, who is obtaining education and howthey get it.

It is especially important to grasp the changing character-istics of community colleges and to distinguish thesefrom other parts of higher education. Community col-leges, which enroll the majority of adult students and thelarge majority of lower income adults, have recentlyreceived much attention as key partners in a continuumof public higher education, from the K-12 system

through universities. Community colleges across thecountry have grown rapidly over the past 15 years, andthis itself presents a complicated picture of demographicsand demands on the institution. For example, the aver-age age of a community college student has fallen from

29 years old to 27 years old, but adult students over age25 represent the largest increase in community collegeenrollments and are now 40 percent of enrollments(College Board 2005).

As part of the workforce needing to increase skills andretrain and reeducate themselves in a globally competi-tive world, and as part of a group whose basic skills areseen as inadequate and whose educational attainment istoo low, adult students are seen as a vast pool of potentialstudents who need postsecondary education for goodjobs in the economy (Cook and King 2005; Center forCommunity College Policy 2003; Carnevale 2004).

Broadly speaking, institutional financing for higher edu-cation and for community colleges in particular has notadapted financing mechanisms or finance policy to sup-port this new vision for adult students and lower incomeadults (Lingenfelter and Voorhees 2003; Bailey andMingle 2003). Some of the newer trends towardaccountability in state financing actually work againstoffering more effective services for adult students. Forinstance, reducing time-to-graduation rates may makesupporting part-time students, many of whom will beadults, a no-win proposition for colleges. Communitycolleges are straining to accommodate growth and to findways of adapting to new adult students who seek postsec-ondary education, but in general the structures of educa-tional finance have not.

State financing mechanisms for higher education nolonger match the realities of student experience, especial-ly the influx of adult students and especially in commu-nity colleges. As state financing policy changes, it shouldconsider ways to better reflect both the ways studentsnow obtain their education and the new ways that highereducation can provide that education. This entails both


an overhaul of the formula on which funding allocationsare made and additional clarity in specifying and thensupporting the missions of higher education. The follow-ing points address mismatches between state financingmechanisms for community colleges (where the large

majority of adult students and lower income adults enrollin higher education) and the tasks confronting this sectoras it seeks to fulfill educational demands.

State funding seldom supports “non-credit” coursework.Only a handful of states, including North Carolina,Pennsylvania, Oregon, Kentucky, Mississippi, andMaryland, fully include non-credit and continuing edu-cation courses in FTE calculations and therefore in insti-tutional financing calculations (Center for CommunityCollege Policy, 2000; Wang and Clowes 1994; Kaufman1994).19 A few other states, like Arizona, Illinois, andNew Jersey, provide partial funding for non-credit cours-es or for some non-credit programs. Most provide no sig-nificant institutional funding for non-credit courses. Yet,in community colleges, non-credit enrollments nowaccount for nearly half of the courses offered and are thefastest growing segment of community college courses(Meyer 2002). Many adults enter postsecondary educa-tion through non-credit courses offered through work-force development or continuing education programs.Continuing education courses constitute a growing areaof professional development and career developmentcourses; these are important to adults for gaining techni-cal skills, career building capacity, and gaining workforcecredentials.

Including non-credit offerings in the calculations forinstitutional financing would provide incentives forschools, especially community colleges, to incorporatethese courses more fully into the mainstream organiza-tion of academic educational programs and provideincentives to close the gap between many credit and non-credit courses in critical occupational fields such as infor-mation technology. This, in turn, would reflect the waysthat many people, especially adults, now gain educationand could help link interests in specific skill developmentcourses or credential courses to degree programs. In otherwords, it could help create a more seamless pathway from

job training to full degrees and be of particular benefit toadult students (and their employers). Funding non-creditcourses commensurate with credit courses also wouldbuild incentive for colleges to learn new ways of deliver-ing education (i.e., customized training, distance educa-

tion, and accelerated courses that often utilize innovativecurricula to target learning for specific audiences andtypes of learners).

Current institutional financing policies tend to weakenand to separate workforce development programs fromthe basic operations of higher education. In the 1970sand 1980s, most community colleges established busi-ness and industry training divisions to offer largely cus-tomized training programs to employers and non-creditoccupational or technical courses to the public. Nearly allof these divisions were self-supporting and dependent on“sales revenue” or grant-funded contracts. In some col-leges, these became profit centers and revenue streams fortheir colleges. In many colleges, these areas became thelocation that carried out publicly funded training pro-grams (WIA, TANF, etc.) as well as the more entrepre-neurial efforts in new, occupationally oriented educationand in aligning services to economic development needs(Spaid and Parsons, 1987; Wang and Clowes, 1994;Center for Community College Policy 2000). Today,these divisions are most commonly known as WorkforceDevelopment Divisions or Workforce and EconomicDevelopment Offices.

A historical legacy of the development of these divisionswithin a community college structure is the ongoingdivision between academic programs and workforcedevelopment. The former is still the basis of accredita-tion, financial aid eligibility, and enrollments that in turnare the basis for calculation of FTE. Workforce develop-ment divisions are largely sales revenue driven or grantdependent. Grant dependence is unstable; grants-drivenservices rightly focus on meeting the funding criteria butnot on developing a stable platform of services.20

These workforce development programs are often ineffi-cient instruments for carrying out a state’s economicdevelopment and workforce development policiesbecause they are simply not well integrated into an insti-tution’s educational framework. Yet, many adult educa-tion and adult services are delivered through (if not con-signed to) the workforce divisions of communitycolleges, and in many community colleges there is littlecommunication between workforce development pro-grams and academic programs. This usually means that a


skill development course delivered through a workforcedevelopment program will have no connection to or willnot bear credit toward a degree.21 However, the over-whelming evidence on the impact of higher education onincomes shows that the most consequential gains in

income accrue to those who achieve formal postsec-ondary certificates and degrees and not just courseworkor a collection of courses. Achieving increases in the edu-cational attainment of adults that has meaning for theeconomy and for workers means developing ways ofhelping adults gain degrees.

If states do seek to establish educational policy prioritiesand performance goals for adult students and services,then the continuing division between workforce develop-ment and academic programs will have to be bridged.One incentive to create this bridge is to build in ongoinginstitutional support for meeting workforce developmentgoals, incorporating these goals into the basic foundation(that is, degree-based occupational education) of com-munity colleges.

New Directions

The primary conclusion that emerges from this necessari-ly limited description of postsecondary student aid andinstitutional financing is that these financing systemssimply do not work for working adults. These systemswere built to promote postsecondary access for tradition-al students; they do not support the educational needs ofworking adults who face an economy that rewards post-secondary credentials and punishes the underprepared.

The Commission on the Future of Higher Educationshould encourage federal and state governments to begina systemic redesign of student aid policies—not to reducesupport for traditional students in need, but rather tooffer more direct assistance to working adults and to usefinancing policies to foster innovations in programdesign and delivery. Important places to begin mightinclude the following:

1. Recognizing more adequately in Pell grant distributionformulas the educational costs facing working adultsand their interest in year-round study.

2. Using aid policies to encourage short-term, intensiveprograms and innovative delivery mechanisms thatwill help underprepared working adults rapidlyacquire postsecondary credentials with immediate

labor market impact.22

3. Providing federal loans, subsidized for the most needy,for working adults who have demonstrated their com-mitment and capacity for postsecondary study but areunable to complete college on a half-time or morebasis.

4. Encouraging states to apply their aid programs toworking adults in ways that complement federal sup-port.

5. Modifying the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit (LLTC)to offer working adults parity with the more generouscredits available for traditional students through theHope program.

6. Making the LLTC credits available to low-incomeworking adults though new “refundability” provisionssimilar to those of the Earned Income Tax Credit.


Talking Points

The current debate over whether—and how—to developaccountability systems to assess and increase the effective-ness of higher education has failed to address adult learn-ers and their needs.

• Accountability measures are intended to providemeaningful ways to assess program quality and tohelp institutions and systems improve by identifyingstrengths and weaknesses.

• Most public accountability discussions and measurescenter on traditional, full-time students, eventhough higher education outcomes are weaker foradult learners.

• Four key groups—students, employers, institutions,and federal and state policymakers—share an inter-est in better adult learner outcomes but have differ-ent priorities.

Existing federal, state, and institutional accountabilitysystems demonstrate little power to monitor outcomes ordrive improvement for adult learners.

• Little publicly available information exists to answeradult learner questions about employment out-comes, earnings potential, or return on educationinvestment when choosing a postsecondary institu-tion.

• Many employers are frustrated with the quality ofjob candidates, but have had little practical involve-ment in designing better accountability systems.

• IT certifications are an example of how occupationalassessment can mutually benefit both students andprospective employers.

• Institutional accountability is managed through apeer-review accreditation process that puts variableemphasis on student learning outcomes.

• Occupational, program-specific accreditation bodiesoverseen by industry or trade groups with specifictraining and resource requirements better serve adultlearners.

• Many higher education institutions express concernthat overly simplistic metrics and reporting systemswill fail to drive improvement and will furtherpolarize key stakeholders.

• The most common higher education accountabilitymeasure is the IPEDS graduation rate reported tothe federal government; this data does not includepart-time or transfer students, who make up the vastmajority of adult learners.

• The federal government does not require institu-tions to report labor market participation, employ-ment, or earnings data that would be relevant foradult students.

• State accountability policies tend to emphasizeenrollment, but new pressures are leading to greaterattention to student outcomes. However, the partic-ular interests and needs of employers and adultlearners are rarely integrated into accountability sys-tems.

Proposed federal legislation provides a starting point forbetter aligning higher education accountability effortswith the needs of adult learners.

• Proposals to strengthen accountability in the HigherEducation Act would provide on-line tools for stu-dents to research and compare institutions and getmore accurate information about college costs andfinancial aid.

• The legislation also would include part-time andtransfer students in the calculation of graduationrates, a positive step to incorporate adult learners.

Section 4.

Accountability:Efforts to Monitor Quality and Drive Improved OutcomesMust Incorporate Measures of Adult Learner Success


To be truly effective for adult learners, accountability sys-tems should include:

• Measures of enrollment, progress, and completionof degree-seeking, part-time students;

• Disaggregation of outcomes by age and other char-acteristics of non-traditional students;

• Outcomes that incorporate industry credentials andlicensure exams as well as educational credentials;and

• Employment and earnings outcomes that captureadult learners’ economic gains.

Additional research and analysis is needed before policy-makers will be able to design accountability systems thatmeet adult learners’ needs. Areas for further attentioninclude:

• The study of existing programmatic accreditationprocesses to determine how promising approachescan be replicated, and what kinds of new approachesmight help address the growing demand for suchevaluation;

• Incorporating lessons from employer methods ofmeasuring skills and learning into design ofaccountability systems that acknowledge the rangeof occupational programs that adults choose;

• Development of state data systems that can reporteconomic as well as educational outcomes, includ-ing longitudinal tracking to capture the effect of dif-ferent kinds of pre-college and college-level creden-tial programs;

• Finding ways to engage all of the key stakeholders ofadult postsecondary education—and to representthe variety of perspectives within each group—infuture discussions of accountability design andimplementation.

Introduction

Accountability in higher education has become a heatedand divisive issue. Conflict over whether and how toassess—and increase—the quality of higher educationprograms has been building, as both the costs and valueof obtaining postsecondary skills and credentials havebeen rising. Fueling the debate is growing evidence abouttwo areas of significant concern—high rates of attritionfrom college credential programs and doubts about the

quality of student learning in higher education institu-tions. In a world where higher education is the key toeconomic self-sufficiency, better ways to assess results—and to improve performance—are critical. But in anindustry where accountability has historically been weak

and institutional autonomy strong, a shift to more effec-tive accountability systems will not come without furtherdebate, conflict, trial and error, and, ultimately, coopera-tion among the various stakeholders for whom highereducation is a critical investment.

These issues are receiving increased attention as theSecretary of Education’s Commission on the Future ofHigher Education holds public hearings and solicits pub-lic comment. Supporters of increased accountability decrythe lack of evidence currently available to help judge theimpact colleges have on individual students, particularlygiven the amount of money that the federal government,states, and students spend on higher education each year.Others are skeptical of what they consider simplisticapproaches to accountability that fail to take into accountthe complexity of missions, market niches, and studentsserved at different postsecondary institutions. In recenttestimony to the Commission, Paul Lingenfelter, presi-dent of the State Higher Education Executive Officers,acknowledged the growing polarization in the field whenhe noted, “Current accountability practices frequentlyreflect worry, frustration, and pique, more than confident,well-designed strategies for improvement. At its worst,current practice is a tool for placing blame on others anddeflecting blame from oneself.”

From the perspective of adult learners and those workingto serve them better, the current interest in accountabili-ty is both welcome and frustrating. It is welcomebecause, as we have shown in this paper, higher educa-tion outcomes are weaker for adult learners than for tra-ditional students and improvement is sorely needed. Atthe same time, it is frustrating because in most discus-sions of accountability, adult learners remain largelyinvisible. Deliberations proceed as if the 27 percent ofcollege enrollments who are “traditional” 18- to 21-year-old, dependent, full-time students comprise an over-whelming majority of learners. They make little acknowl-edgement of the unique needs and interests of adults.


A striking example is the 2005 report of the NationalCommission on Accountability in Higher Education,Accountability for Better Results, a very thoughtful andrich argument for improved accountability sponsored bythe State Higher Education Executive Officers. The

report does a terrific job of explaining why clearer goals,better measures, and more effective use of data on stu-dent and institutional outcomes are critically importantto the future of higher education and the U.S. economy.However, while the report presents powerful evidence oninequities in postsecondary outcomes for various sub-populations—minorities, low-income, and first-genera-tion students—adult learners are never mentioned andthe kinds of steps that might help improve their out-comes remain underdeveloped.

This section describes the ways in which higher educa-tion stakeholders, including students, employers, andpolicymakers, currently assess the effectiveness of post-secondary education. We then analyze opportunities forimproving these processes for adult learners—and offersome general principles that should guide the futuredevelopment of accountability metrics and systems tohelp improve outcomes for this important population.

Existing Accountability Systems DoLittle for Adult Learners

Accountability systems are intended to provide meaning-ful ways to assess program quality and to help institu-tions and systems improve by identifying strengths andweaknesses. In recent years, following on the heels of theaccountability movement in K-12 education, higher edu-cation policymakers and leaders have been evaluating theneed to improve postsecondary accountability mecha-nisms and measures. Four distinct groups have a sharedinterest in better outcomes in higher education, thoughtheir priorities and concerns vary:

• Students. Students, both traditional and non-tradition-al, are the primary consumers of higher education—and their tuition rates, loans, and other costs are rising.

• Employers. Employers rely on higher education institu-tions to supply much of their workforce, at the entry,technician, professional, and managerial levels. Theymay be seen as the secondary customer for higher edu-cation’s products.

• Institutions. Institutions have a clear stake in demon-strating to consumers, employers, and policymakersthat their students benefit from their services. They alsowant to show other institutions that their courses are ofsufficient quality and their credits should be transfer-

able.

• Federal and state policymakers. Federal and state poli-

cymakers provide funds for higher education opera-tions and student financial aid. Policymakers at bothlevels of government are growing increasingly interestedin measuring higher education results as budgets aresqueezed by rising health care and other entitlementcosts.

At present, existing accountability systems address theinterests and needs of each of these groups in only limit-ed ways. Most important, from the perspective of adultlearners, they have demonstrated little power to monitoroutcomes or drive improvement in postsecondary pro-grams serving adults.

Most Consumer Information aboutHigher Education Focuses onTraditional Student Needs

Prospective college students rely on a variety of commer-cial products when evaluating postsecondary institutionsto attend. College guides that present comparative dataabout individual institutions (e.g., U.S. News & WorldReport’s “America’s Best Colleges”) are the best-knownexample. However, these products, which include infor-mation on everything from academic offerings to campussocial life, target traditional students looking for a resi-dential, full-time college experience. No commercialproducts geared for adult learners exist.

Compared to traditional students, who are more likely toattend a four-year private institution and value academicreputation, availability of financial aid, and affordablecost most highly, adult learners place greater emphasis onflexible access to courses and future employment oppor-tunities when making a college enrollment decision. (SeeTable 4.)

Unfortunately, there is little publicly available informa-tion that addresses the primary concerns of adult learn-ers, especially related to employment outcomes, futurelikelihood of earning enough to repay student loans, andreturn on their education investment. This huge gap in


the public’s ability to evaluate institutional performanceas it relates to adult learners’ needs poses another seriousobstacle to adults making quality choices about their fur-ther education.

Employers Play a Limited Role inAccountability Systems, DespiteDependence on Graduates

Employers are among the most vigorous proponents ofthe need for better education and training, up and downthe labor market. They are visible in local, state, andnational debates about higher education and the access tohuman capital that their firms require. However, they arefrequently on the sidelines when specific accountabilityand improvement strategies are developed. Beyond theirhiring decisions, employers tend to have few direct waysto signal their interests and priorities in higher educationaccountability systems.

When it comes to hiring decisions, employers in manyindustries continue to struggle to find effective methodsfor evaluating recent college graduates. One proxy someemployers use to guide their judgments about programquality and student qualifications is industry certifica-tion. Certification assures employers that individualshave completed a course of study that has taught themparticular skills or knowledge, which they can apply to aspecific workforce role.

Recent growth in the number of certifications awarded inthe information technology field demonstrates one areawhere employers have sent clear signals to workers aboutthe credentials that have high labor market value. (SeeFigure 9.) The development of IT certifications illustrateshow occupational assessment can be mutually beneficialto both students and prospective employers.

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

522

1,213

280

633

175265

370485

150

400

MCP MCSE CNE CAN A+

As of 1999/2000

As of 2003/2004

Figure 9. Total IT Certifications Awarded to Date, Selected Certificate Types

Source: University Continuing Education Association 2004

Table 4. Prioritized Ranking of Enrollment Factors

Rank Undergraduate Adult Students Rank Traditional Students

1 Academic reputation 1 Academic reputation

2 (tie) Availability of evening/weekend courses 2 Financial aid

2 (tie) Future employment opportunities 3 Cost

4 Campus location 4 Personalized attention prior toenrollment

5 Personalized attention prior to enrollment 5 Size of institution

Source: Noel-Levitz 2005


Other industries have well developed occupational assess-ments of this kind, particularly in health care, but also intechnical fields such as automotive service and construc-tion. However, employer reliance on these certificationsis spotty. The field of business, the most common under-

graduate major in two- and four-year higher education,offers no such system of assessing work-readiness of pro-gram completers. In many industries, employers are leftto rely on little more than program brand reputation orlong-term relationships with certain postsecondary insti-tutions.

Many employers are clearly frustrated with the quality ofjob candidates available today. Much of that frustrationhas been channeled into efforts to improve K-12 educa-tion in communities from which they hire. RecentEduventures research identifies the priority concerns ofU.S. employers regarding education and training out-comes at the postsecondary level. Above all, employerswant to know whether, after a learning and developmentopportunity, a particular person will be able to do a par-ticular job well. (See Table 5.)

Ultimately, employers need to be more active in demand-ing better accountability from higher education—and inhelping to develop new accountability metrics of value tothe modern workplace. Otherwise, they will remain rela-tively weak players in the arena of higher educationimprovement—despite the importance of improvementto their long-term prospects.

Institutional Accountability IsManaged Through a Peer-ReviewAccreditation Process that PutsVariable Emphasis on StudentLearning Outcomes

Institutional accountability is managed primarilythrough the accreditation process. Accreditation is a peerreview that may be completed by either a private agencyor a government body with the goal of ensuring “thateducation provided by institutions of higher educationmeets acceptable levels of quality” (U.S. Department ofEducation). Institutions are required to maintain theiraccreditation status through ongoing reviews that mayoccur on a program-specific or institution-wide basis.These reviews serve to “approve” an institution’s pro-grams based on how the institution compares to its peersand established standards.

Over the past decade, the regional bodies that governaccreditation procedures have begun to place greateremphasis on student outcomes in their standards; theywere fairly silent on the subject through much of the20th century. However, accreditation is a process thatrespects institutional autonomy and grants great latitudein the setting of priorities. Institutions set their own goalsand then do a self-study and peer evaluation of whetherthey are meeting those goals and how they can improvetheir efforts. They are not required to pay particularattention to improving student outcomes. According tothe association of accrediting agencies, “Accreditingorganizations have frequently acknowledged studentlearning outcomes as an important dimension of quali-

Table 5. Outcome Measures Employers Value Most in Evaluating EmployeeLearning and Development Programs

1 Workforce proficiency (the ability to do the job well)

2 Operational efficiency (the ability to do the job efficiently)

3 Regulatory compliance (improved knowledge of regulatory requirements)

4 Changes in employee commitment to the organization (improved commitment)

5 Changes in employment motivation (increased employee motivation)

6 Learner satisfaction (with the learning program)

7 Time-to-competency (speed of learning new skills)

Source: Eduventures 2005


ty—and in many cases, have actively built or adoptednew review standards and criteria to address it. But theparticular ‘stances’ that they have adopted vary widely”(Ewell 2001).

For adult learners—and their employers—the program-specific accreditation bodies may be more relevant. Theseorganizations assess the quality of specific educational

programs, typically occupational, such as nursing andother allied health fields. The process is typically overseenby an industry or trade association and features specificrequirements to ensure that students receive sufficienttraining and have access to appropriate resources. Thisoversight is designed to ensure that program graduatesare adequately prepared to enter the workforce.

Postsecondary institutions have varied internal approach-es to improving quality and trying to help their stu-dents/customers achieve their educational and careergoals. Recent research indicates that many institutions’primary strategic objectives align with the goal ofimproving the number and the readiness of their gradu-ates (See objectives 1, 4, 5, and 6 in Table 6.)

However, institutional commitment to improvement isvery different from public accountability for studentlearning, credential attainment, employment and earn-ings, or success in further education. Institution-levelresistance to pressures for greater accountability com-bines a natural resistance to curtailment of autonomyand a desire to minimize comparisons with other institu-tions with a legitimate concern that the rush to moremetrics and requirements will result in overly simplisticprescriptions that will do little to drive improvement.

Moving too quickly does run the risk of further polariz-ing institutional leaders, policymakers, employers, andstudents—without contributing to better outcomes.

Unfortunately for adult learners, this polarized position-ing of competing interests does little to focus attentionon their needs or how to improve services for them.Indeed, the current debate runs the risk of further mar-

ginalizing the interests of this significant constituency inhigher education. Consider the College LearningAssessment that the Council for Aid to Education hasdeveloped to measure students’ critical thinking, analyticreasoning, and written communication skills. The examis currently available to institutions on a voluntary basis.

Supporters have argued that this kind of standardizedtest is necessary to determine student learning outcomesin postsecondary institutions, while critics fear that stan-dardized testing of college learning is too simplistic to bean effective tool given the diversity of institutions andcurricula that make up higher education in this country.The CLA may or may not be a good idea, but its rele-vance for adult students is not yet being considered. Forexample, would this test be appropriate for adults whoare pursuing occupational credentials? Or would it bemore appropriate for those who take full general educa-tion sequences? These questions are not part of the cur-rent national debate on measuring student learning out-comes.

Table 6. Strategic Objectives of Senior Higher Education Administrators

1 Improve student learning outcomes

2 Attract/retain faculty

3 Improve fundraising

4 Improve retention rates

5 Improve use of data for strategic decision support

6 Increase enrollment

7 Enhance productivity of faculty and administrators

Source: Eduventures, 2005b


Federal Accountability RequirementsAre Poorly Suited for Adults

The most ubiquitous accountability metric in higher

education is the graduation data reported to the federalgovernment. Since 1999, all postsecondary institutionsthat are eligible to participate in Title IV loan and grantprograms have been required to report their annual grad-uation rate for fall semester cohorts of first-time, full-time students in degree programs. (The mandate waspart of the Student Right to Know and Campus SecurityAct amendments to the Higher Education Act.) Four-year colleges calculate the number of students who grad-uate within six years, while community colleges calculatea three-year rate.

However, this common accountability tool is largelyirrelevant for comparisons of quality or outcomes foradult learners. The methodology for calculating thisgraduation rate does not include part-time students ortransfer students, who make up a huge proportion ofadults furthering their education (American Associationof State Colleges and Universities 2002).23 Rather, itfocuses on results for just a fraction of the nation’s post-secondary population. In New Mexico, for example, only8 percent of the 74,000 enrollments in the state’s com-munity colleges in the fall of 2004 were first-time, full-time students.

The federal government requires institutions to submitadditional data, besides graduation rates. All institutionsreceiving Title IV grants must report information about avariety of institutional characteristics, including:

• Basic characteristics: tuition, enrollment, and other stu-dent expense data (e.g., room and board fees);

• Completions: level of degree, field of study, and demo-graphic data for each student who earns a credential;

• Enrollment: number of full-time and part-time studentsby degree level, gender, and race/ethnicity; and

• Financial aid: number of students receiving financialaid, including student demographics and various typesof aid (e.g., grants, loans, etc.).

• Operational information: selected data including staffand salary information

From the perspective of adult learners, it would be criti-cal to include measures of labor market participation,employment, and earnings of graduates as well. However,there is no federal requirement for connecting educationand employment data or for reporting employment-relat-

ed outcomes.

Here is another example of how the diversity of institu-

tions that serve adults demands careful consideration ofaccountability metrics and reporting standards. Manyinstitutions—specifically the proprietary career collegesthat serve a large population of adult learners—reportdata only on an aggregate basis, rather than breaking itdown campus by campus. As a result, adult learners findit difficult to get basic information about a particularcareer college campus or location.

Proposed Federal LegislationAddresses Non-traditional AdultLearner Needs

In 2005, the House leadership proposed several measuresdesigned to strengthen federal accountability systems inthe Higher Education Act. H.R. 609, which was intro-duced but has not been acted upon, includes proposalsthat would make it easier for students to gather criticalinformation about postsecondary institutions and wouldinclude adult learner data in some accountability metrics.The legislation is a starting point for better aligninghigher education accountability efforts with the needsand interests of adult learners. One particularly promis-ing proposal would include part-time and transfer stu-dents in the calculation of graduation rates. Other pro-posals include:

• Providing students and families with on-line tools toresearch and compare institutions;

• Increasing the transparency of college cost, price, andfinancial aid;

• Raising public awareness of available information, espe-cially for non-traditional students; and

• Making more information available on the number oftransfer and part-time students, and including them inrelevant calculations.


State Accountability SystemsIncreasingly Track More thanEnrollments, But They Are Slow toAddress Adult Learners and EconomicMetrics

Almost every state in the nation claims to have someform of accountability system (Wellman 2003). TheState Higher Education Executive Officers Web site listsaccountability reports and plans for about 40 states(www.sheeo.org). The starting points are the accountabili-ty metrics reported to the U.S. Department ofEducation. However, states use that information in manydifferent ways, and to different extents, to inform fund-ing decisions. They also use more than graduation ratedata in oversight and improvement roles.

By and large, because of the way in which funding for-mulas are constructed for public higher education,enrollment is the metric that states are most intent oncollecting and tracking. Colleges are reimbursed by thestate for enrollments; not surprisingly, reporting ofenrollments is quite well developed.

Economic, fiscal, and other pressures are now drivingstates to consider strengthening their accountability sys-tems for higher education. And a number of states havemade expanded their accountability systems to addressstudent outcomes more directly—and to address eco-nomic impacts of higher education in the state. However,particular consideration of adult learners and accounta-bility metrics that address their progress through highereducation are rare.

Almost two dozen states have begun to set overall goalsfor their higher education systems in the areas of attain-ment and completion. A smaller number of states—seven—have set specific attainment and/or completion

goals for minority, low-income, or other populations.Some, though not all, are also putting in place mecha-nisms for tracking progress. According to a recent Jobsfor the Future report, approximately half of all stateshave “specified measurable goals for increasing the pro-

portion of their population with a postsecondary educa-tion, including specific benchmarks and a specific time-frame for achieving the goals” (Collins 2006). (See Table7.) While these goals are not necessarily formally linkedto postsecondary accountability systems, identifying spe-cific goals is a necessary first step in linking actual resultswith desired outcomes.

The report did not identify any goals that were disaggre-gated by age or that specified outcomes for adult learners.

Kentucky is one state that has begun to investigate howits higher education system is faring relative to its pro-jected labor market needs for skilled and well-roundedcollege graduates. Kentucky has as one of its keyaccountability questions: “Are college graduates preparedfor life and work in Kentucky?” (Kentucky Council onPostsecondary Education 2006).

Kentucky estimates that it will need up to fifteen years tonearly double the number of residents ages 25-64 with atleast a four-year degree. Kentucky has also identified spe-cific occupations/fields where future need is critical if thestate is to remain economically competitive. From thisprocess, the state has allocated $1 million per year to“recruit, mentor and place minorities and women inengineering programs” (Kentucky Council onPostsecondary Education 2006).

Table 7. Statewide Numerical Goals for Student Access and SuccessNumberof States

Enrollment: States with at least one enrollment goal 20

Retention: States with at least one retention goal 10

Graduation: States with at least one graduation goal 19

All: States with at least one enrollment, retention, and graduation goal 10

Source: Collins 2006


Texas is also building a comprehensive higher educationaccountability system focused on increasing educationattainment for key population segments, in order to “pre-serve the state’s standard of living” (Collins 2006). Texashas a clear plan called Closing the Gaps that specifies tar-gets for increased enrollment and degree completion ofindividuals from different population subgroups in thestate by 2015. While the plan does not specify targets foradult students, it will be difficult for the state to meet itsgoals without addressing adult learners more effectivelyin higher education.

Texas and Kentucky are both tying their accountabilitysystems and priorities to higher education gains—and toemployer and economic demand. Much work remains tobe done in this area, in these two states and certainly inothers, if state accountability systems are to embrace andaddress the interests of both adult learners and the states’employers, who want to see a greater supply of creden-tialed, quality employees.

Initial Thoughts on StrengtheningAccountability Systems—from AdultLearners’ Perspective

It would be premature at this early stage in the discussionof accountability for adult learners to propose a specificset of goals and metrics that would focus attention on thequality of education and training they are receiving andthe benefits accruing to them from college participation.However, it is possible to identify broad principles thatshould guide the development of accountability systemsin higher education to ensure they are flexible enough tobe relevant to adult learners and the programs they caremost about. An adult-focused higher education systemwould:

• Encourage greater postsecondary participation amongadult learners to support their employment and careergoals and employer interest in skill upgrading;

• Promote student success from enrollment to degreecompletion in order to reduce high attrition rates foradult learners; and

• Connect students with employers in their fields andwith routes into the labor market in order to maximizethe economic gains of working adults and those whoemploy them.

An accountability system that monitors and acceleratesachievement of these goals would feature priority state-ments that explicitly acknowledge the importance of

serving adult learners. In order to be successful, the sys-tem must address each step in the adult learner’s path,from postsecondary enrollment through completion toparticipation in the labor force. Such a system wouldspecify metrics for institutional performance and studentoutcomes that take into account adult learners’ distinc-tive patterns of college attendance and encourage collegesto be more effective in helping adult learners earn cre-dentials. Key metrics must include measures of employ-ment and earnings over time as well as credential andeducational gains, such as:

• Measures of enrollment, progress, and completion ofdegree-seeking, part-time students;

• Disaggregation of outcomes by age and other character-istics of non-traditional students;

• Outcomes that incorporate industry credentials andlicensure exams as well as educational credentials; and

• Employment and earnings outcomes that capture adultlearners’ economic gains.

Much more research and analysis is needed before policy-makers will be able to design accountability systems thatbetter address adult learners’ needs—and drive improve-ment in adult-learner programming. Some areas requir-ing further attention include:

Strategies to strengthen program accreditation

Existing programmatic accreditation processes should bestudied to determine how promising approaches can bereplicated and what kinds of new approaches might helpaddress the growing demand for this type of quality con-trol in both public and private higher education systems.Research should also consider how programmatic andinstitutional accreditation processes can be better alignedto promote flexible movement across programs andinstitutions.


Approaches to measuring student skillsand learning

Employers play an important role in some credential pro-

grams in helping shape ways to evaluate whether studentspossess the competencies needed in new hires or whetherworkers have the ability to adjust to new technologiesand responsibilities. Policymakers should incorporate les-sons from the best of these efforts—employer roles instandard-setting, providing workplace practicums anddesigning performance assessments—to help them createaccountability systems that acknowledge the range ofoccupational programs that adults choose. As accounta-bility debates turn to what are the best ways to determinehow much students are learning, through standardizedexams or other means, the perspectives of both employersand adult learners themselves can help provide a broaderrange of options to consider.

Ways to strengthen data systems in order toreport economic as well as educational outcomes

State governments have been at the forefront of develop-ing new data and accountability systems. Some states—such as Florida, Washington, and Texas—have madeprogress in determining employment outcomes by link-ing databases to connect higher education outcome datawith unemployment insurance system data. Much addi-tional work is needed in this arena so that longitudinaltracking of postsecondary students can capture the effectof different kinds of pre-college and college-level creden-tial programs on educational and economic outcomes.

Strategies for engaging all key stakeholders inaccountability discussions and development

Designing an accountability system that meets the needs

and interests of adult learners will require careful con-struction. All of the key stakeholders need a seat at thetable, including higher education leaders from all typesof institutions—public and private, nonprofit and for-profit. State and federal policymakers should also beinvolved. Above all, representatives of different kinds ofemployers must step up to argue for a system that bettermeets their needs and to help design its contours. Finally,adult learners themselves should participate. Just as adultinstruction should incorporate adults’ knowledge andexperiences, so too should the design of systems intendedto help them achieve their goals for a better education, abetter career, and a better life.


Introduction

This paper has shown the critical importance of improv-ing adult access to and success in higher education forthe economic well-being of the nation, employers andworkers alike. While some postsecondary institutionshave responded creatively to the needs of adult learners,the shift toward a more adult-friendly system remains fartoo slow. The challenge of making it easier for workingadults to succeed in college credential programs requiresexplicit attention and a carefully tailored strategy. It isnot enough to hope for improvement as a byproduct ofincreasing college success for traditional, younger stu-dents.

Such an effort will require commitment and action fromemployers, educational institutions, and adult learnersthemselves. But policymakers have a significant role toplay, as well. At both the federal and state levels, policy-makers can take important steps to create conditions andsupports that encourage commitments to developing theaffordable, flexible, and responsive postsecondary pro-grams working adults need.

For this reason, we recommend here a policy plan forincreasing the number of working adults pursuing andearning postsecondary credentials. The plan addresses thethree major topics of this report—accessibility, afford-ability, and accountability—as well as employer engage-ment, which affects each of the other areas. While ouranalysis of the challenges facing adult learners in highereducation highlighted many issues meriting attention,this section presents the top priorities for immediateaction. Each would require significant levels of bothcooperation and funding, but without them, systemicchange in higher education that would dramaticallyimprove outcomes for adult learners will be unlikely.

These recommendations, summarized here, are outlinedin detail below:

• Develop federal-state partnerships to promote and testinnovative approaches to increasing adult access to andsuccess in higher education.

• Update federal student financial aid programs to stimu-late and support the postsecondary education of work-ing adults.

• Create a national system to track and report individualadult student outcomes over time.

• Establish research and development programs toencourage employer engagement in the postsecondaryeducation of working adults.

Recommendation 1:Develop federal-state partnerships to promoteand test innovative approaches to increasingadult access to and success in higher education.

Except for the funds it provides for student financial aid,the federal government has little influence over the struc-ture or programming of postsecondary education. Stategovernments oversee and fund these institutions, andtherefore states must be important partners in any effortto make postsecondary systems more amenable to work-ing adults. Nonetheless, the federal government can playa critical role, working closely with states and offeringfinancial incentives that jumpstart the process.

Specifically, the federal government should partner withstates to create Innovation Partnerships that: 1) test newapproaches for increasing adult access to and success inhigher education; and 2) scale up promising strategies.There is no shortage of innovative ideas for better meet-ing the needs of adult learners. A number of postsec-ondary institutions in the nonprofit and for-profit sectorstarget working adults by offering flexible and acceleratedprograms, adult-friendly instructional methods, and easi-er transitions within and across institutions. Their suc-cesses point the way toward a system that would encour-age, not block, adults in their efforts to earn

Section 5.

Recommendations:A Plan for Addressing Adult Learners’ Needs in Higher Education


postsecondary credentials, despite the difficulties of jug-gling work, school, and family obligations. They alsohighlight how institutional, system, and public policymight better support such innovations.

The new federal-state Innovation Partnerships would bepropelled by a competitive grant program, offering feder-al matching funds to states interested in testing some of

these varied approaches to helping their adult learnerscomplete higher education credentials more quickly andsuccessfully. The partnerships would focus on any area ofhigher education policy where change is likely toimprove results for adults, including governance, financ-ing, programming, licensing, and accreditation.

This would be a time-limited “research and develop-ment” investment by the federal government, designed toleverage state innovation and investment to serve a criti-cal student population. States would not have to partici-pate, but the incentives would be available only to statesthat, in partnership with their higher education systems,submit clear proposals for multi-year activities to test andexpand approaches to increase adult learner access andsuccess.

Key features of the Innovation Partnerships shouldinclude:

• A sharp focus on improving results for working adults, asmeasured by credential completion, the strengtheningof performance measures, and system reform to expandand sustain innovations statewide;

• Strong employer involvement in all levels, from state over-sight to local partnerships with educational institutions;

• A dollar-for-dollar match from participating states;

• One-year planning grants, followed by annual, formula-based implementation grants (for a maximum of fiveyears total);

• Data-based management for the implementation grants,against clear, annual progress goals; and

• Waiver authority where needed for institutions and post-secondary systems that wish to research specific learn-ing and programming needs of adult students and teststrategies that can increase their access to and success inpostsecondary credential programs (e.g., adjustingFTE-based funding formulas for innovative efforts toprovide education for hard-to-serve populations).

Recommendation 2:Update federal student financial aid programs tostimulate and support the postsecondaryeducation of working adults.

It is essential to rethink how the federal and state govern-ments provide financial aid to adult students. Aid pro-grams designed for full-time, traditional students, whileslowly being updated for the modern educational experi-ence, remain sorely out of touch with the needs of work-ing adults. Many adult learners do not qualify for finan-cial aid because they cannot sustain amore-than-part-time school schedule, or they are eligibleto receive only a few hundred dollars in aid each year.This prevents many low-income adults from accessing orcompleting postsecondary education. Working adultsneed a student aid system that matches their needs, andmore must be done more quickly to improve it. Such aredesign must not reduce support for traditional studentsin need but rather offer more direct assistance to adultlearners.

Two priorities emerge from the research. First, the federalgovernment should continue to update the Pell Grantprogram and revisit restrictive rules of the federal studentloan programs. At the same time, the federal governmentshould energetically pursue the expansion of educationtax credits and deductions, which are a promising alter-native to complex, burdensome traditional grant andloan programs. In fact, the U.S. government is alreadydelivering more and more student aid through the taxcode, including credits and deductions for spending ontuition and fees in the current tax year and for savingtoward college in the future. This method of deliveryworks particularly well for working adults, who pay taxesand who—unlike most traditional students—can benefitfrom offsets to their tax liability.

Updates to the Pell Grant and federal student loanprograms should include these features:

• Create a “year-round” option for Pell Grant recipients:Many students—especially part-time, working adultstudents—must attend year-round in order to graduatewithin a reasonable timeframe. However, Pell Grantsare limited to two semesters per academic year.Allowing students to receive Pell funding year-roundpromises to increase their persistence and, ultimately,their ability to complete degrees.

• Repeal the “tuition sensitivity” provision of Pell Grants:This provision stipulates an automatic reduction in aid


for students attending lower cost institutions, such ascommunity colleges, where adults often make up mostof the student body. This disproportionately harmsworking adult students, especially those whose lowincomes force them to attend low-cost colleges.

• Allow use of “current-year income” to determine Pell Grantallocations: Many working adult students would benefit

from easing the rigid adherence to using a student’sprior-year income on the Free Application for FederalStudent Aid to determine the amount of aid the stu-dent will receive. Many adults enroll in postsecondaryeducation because they are displaced from a job and nolonger enjoy their former income. Streamlining theFAFSA to consider the current year’s income—at leastfor students in these types of special circumstances—would provide a significant benefit for these students.

• Expand loan eligibility to part-time students: Currentfederal policy limits student loans to those who enrollat least half time. However, most working adults consis-tently attend less than half time or vary their enroll-ment intensity. The federal government may be able toimprove persistence and completion rates by expandingstudent loans to students who are committed to post-secondary study but are unable to consistently enrollhalf time or more.

Amendments to the Hope Scholarship and LifetimeLearning Tax Credits should include these provisions:

• Increase the percentage of “qualified educational expenses”allowed under the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit:Increasing the percentage from 20 percent to 50 per-cent (while capping the total credit at an appropriatelevel) would mean that financial aid covers more of thereal costs of attending a postsecondary institution.

• Expand the definition of “qualified expenses” for both theHope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Tax Credit:Including room and board, books, supplies, equip-ment, transportation, and child care as “qualifiedexpenses” would target the costs that burden workingstudents the most. It also would bring the credits inline with current student aid rules, thereby reducingsome of the confusion surrounding the student aid pro-grams.

• Allow the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit to be applied on a“per student” basis: Current rules allow only one creditper family. Changing the policy—which would put it

in line with the Hope guidelines—would help familieswith two generations of students in college, and itwould simplify the credits for filers.

• Make both the Hope and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits“refundable”: This would allow tax filers to keep the fullamount of the credits, including any amount beyondtheir tax liability. This would provide a necessary boost

for low-income working adults who need postsec-ondary education the most to help them climb out ofpoverty, but get stuck in a “Catch 22”: they earn toomuch to qualify for student aid but too little to incur atax liability.Therefore, they receive no benefit from theeducation tax credits.

Recommendation 3:Create a national system to track and reporteducational and employment outcomes for adultlearners over time.

Higher education accountability systems were designedwith traditional, full-time students in mind and fail tomeet adult learner needs. The federal government canplay a significant role in creating tracking systems foradult learners that better capture not only educationaloutcomes but also the economic and employment out-comes that are important to them. This would helpadults make informed decisions about where to seekhigher education. It would also enable policymakers tomore accurately assess the impact of higher educationspending and to plan institutional and system improve-ments.

However, the federal government must proceed carefully,so that the ability of states and institutions to use data fordecision making and improvement is maximized in theshift to a national system.

Some proposals for amending the Higher Education Actwould provide a starting point for better alignment ofhigher education accountability efforts with the needs ofadult learners, such as including part-time and transferstudents in the calculation of graduation rates and pro-viding on-line tools for students to research and compareinstitutions. However, even if these win approval fromCongress, much more change will be needed. Metrics fora comprehensive, adult-focused accountability systemalso would include: measures of enrollment, progress,and completion of degree-seeking, part-time students;disaggregation of outcomes by age and other characteris-tics of non-traditional students; outcomes that incorpo-rate industry credentials and licensure exams in addition


to educational credentials; and employment and earningsoutcomes that capture adult learners’ economic gains.

The federal government can take two important steps toimprove the ability of higher education data andaccountability systems to reflect the progress of adultlearners. First, it should create a national, longitudinal,student record system that includes working adults and

can disaggregate their progress. Second, it should pro-mote state-level higher education accountability systemsthat contain richer information on adult learners andtheir educational and economic successes.

The U.S. Department of Education should movetoward a national, longitudinal, unit record systemfor tracking all postsecondary students that wouldinclude24:

• The ability to distinguish among students enrolled at dif-ferent intensities—full-time or part-time, as measuredby number of credit- or clock-hours enrolled;

• The ability to distinguish among students seeking all typesof postsecondary education—certificates, degrees, andnon-credit education;

• The ability to follow students as they combine courses andprograms from a variety of educational providers;

• Disaggregation of student populations and their outcomesby age, ethnicity, employment status, and other demo-graphic characteristics to create a better picture of theentire higher education population, and the hard-to-seeadult learner population in particular; and

• Integration with other education and employment datasystems, so that individual K-12 education records andunemployment insurance history are also accessible.

It is clear that there are political sensitivities around thisrecommendation. Not long ago, intense opposition fromvarious constituencies (certain groups of colleges, statedata offices, privacy advocates, and others) caused a pro-posal for a national system to be shelved. However, sever-al states—including California, Washington, Oregon,and Texas—have made significant progress in themechanics and design—and effective use—of such sys-tems. Any movement toward a national unit record sys-tem can and should work closely with these lead statesand learn from their experience and expertise. This isparticularly important if data on students and their out-comes are to be helpful in decision making to improveresults. States need access to student data regularly and

quickly to inform decisions about funding and policypriorities. If a national student unit record data system iscreated, the federal government must make a strongcommitment to provide states and institutions with easyaccess to data for decision making.

The federal government should encourage and supportstate higher education accountability systems thatinclude labor market outcomes, as well as educationaloutcomes.

Institutions and public accountability systems shouldreport not just on credential completion rates but also onemployment and earnings outcomes for those who enterand complete their programs of study. A number ofstates do this by integrating educational data systemswith the employment and earnings data reportedthrough the unemployment insurance system. Federalfunding and other policies should promote and supportthis integration so that it is more readily available infor-mation in more states.

Recommendation 4:Establish research and development programs toencourage employer engagement in thepostsecondary education of working adults.

Despite the occupational focus of most postsecondarygraduates, few educational institutions and postsec-ondary policies engage employers—the demand side ofthe labor market—beyond a limited advisory capacity. Itis rare for these institutions to involve employers deeplyin designing curricula, importing information and mate-rials from the workplace into the classroom, providingstudent internships and other types of work experiencesmerged with course activities, providing faculty extern-ships, and delivering classes in the workplace. Likewise,federal and state policies fail to fully leverage employerinvolvement in targeted financing for credentialed educa-tion and skill development of working adults who lackpostsecondary credentials.

Encouraging deeper engagement of employers in allaspects of postsecondary education could result intremendous benefits for students, employers, and theeducational institutions themselves. However, research todocument existing practices or what works is limited.

For this reason, the federal government should undertaketwo sets of research and development activities to learnmore about and better leverage employers in higher edu-cation. First, it should research current practices inemployer involvement in postsecondary program design,


delivery, and financing. Second, it should invest in theseeding and testing of promising practices in employerengagement, with the goal of promoting successfulstrategies for broad adoption.

Research to understand current practice in employerinvolvement in postsecondary education shouldinclude:

• Benchmarking the extent of intensive employer involve-ment in postsecondary curriculum design, faculty develop-ment, and program delivery: A scan of how colleges anduniversities engage employers would help to establishthis benchmark and uncover “pockets” of innovationwhose lessons can help guide future employer activityand supportive policy.

• Basic research on employer financing of postsecondary edu-cation: Current estimates of what employers spend varywildly because they are based on select sample surveys.One area of research that would be particularly helpfulis on employer tuition assistance programs. Reinstatingand expanding IRS reporting requirements for “section127” filers would help tremendously in understandinghow these investments are made and who benefits fromthem.

• State efforts to better leverage employer investment: Forexample, some states provide tax credits to companiesthat invest in education and skill development of work-ers. However, little is known about how widely usedthese policies are, which companies claim them, or

which workers benefit. A better understanding of anemployer’s return on investment could help shape theexpansion of such credits to other states.

The promoting of promising practices in employerengagement should provide stronger incentives foremployer partnerships.

At the institutional level, the incentives to engageemployers in postsecondary improvement are weak. Agrants program—perhaps a partnership among business,private philanthropy, and government—could help insti-tutions and their employer stakeholders expand theirpartnerships and ultimately institutionalize new ways ofcollaborating. It could promote and advance innova-tions—in curriculum design and delivery, the use ofworkplaces as learning places, and employer financing ofemployee education costs—that could have a lastingimpact for adult learners, their employers, and theeconomy.


ACE Issue Brief. 2004. Federal Student Loan Debt: 1993to 2004. Washington, DC: American Council onEducation.

Adelman, Clifford. 2004. Principal Indicators of StudentAcademic Histories in Postsecondary Education 1972-2000.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Allen, Elaine I. and Jeff Seaman. 2005. Growing byDegrees: Online Education in the United States. Wellesley,MA: The Sloan Consortium.

Alssid, Julian et al. 2002. Building a Career PathwaysSystem. New York: Workforce Strategy Center.

American Association of State Colleges and Universities.2002. Accountability and Graduation Rates: Seeing TheForest and the Trees. Washington, DC: Author.

Arone, Michael. 2004. “State Spending on CollegesDrops Over All for the First Time in 11 Years.” Chronicleof Higher Education. January 8.

Bailey, Alice Anne and James R. Mingle. 2003. The AdultLearning Gap: Why States Need to Change Their PoliciesToward Adult Learners. Denver, Colorado: EducationCommission of the States.

Bailey, Thomas et al. 2003. For-Profit Higher Educationand Community Colleges. CCRC Brief No. 16. New York:Community College Research Center, Teachers College,Columbia University.

Bailey, Thomas et al. 2005. Is Student Right-To-Know AllYou Should Know? CCRC Working Paper No. 2. NewYork: Community College Research Center, TeachersCollege, Columbia University.

Bailey, Thomas, Davis Jenkins, and Tim Leinbach. 2005.Is Student Success Labeled Institutional Failure? StudentGoals and Graduation Rates in the Accountability Debateat Community Colleges. CCRC Working Paper No. 1.New York: Community College Research Center,Teachers College, Columbia University.

Baum, Sandy and Kathleen Payea. 2004. Education Pays2004. New York: College Board.

Bell, Julie Davis, Cheryl D. Blanco, Jacqueline E. King,Paul E. Lingenfelter, and David A. Longanecker. 2003.Integrating Financial Aid and Financing Policies: CaseStudies from Five States. Report prepared for the WesternInterstate Commission for Higher Education. Boulder,CO: WICHE.

Berg, Gary A. 2005a. Lessons from the Edge: For-Profitand Nontraditional Higher Education in America.Westport, CT: Praeger.

Berg, Gary A. 2005b. “Reform Higher Education withCapitalism?” Change. May/June.

Berker, Ali, Laura Horn, and C. Dennis Carroll. 2003.Work First, Study Second: Adult Undergraduates WhoCombine Employment and Postsecondary Enrollment.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,Institute of Education Sciences.

Berkner, Lutz, Laura Horn, and Michael Clune. 2000.Descriptive Summary of 1995-96 Beginning PostsecondaryStudents: Three Years Later. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics.

Berkner, Lutz, Shirley He, and Emily Forrest Cataldi.2002. Descriptive Summary of 1995-96 BeginningPostsecondary Students: Six Years Later. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics.

Bonk, Curtis J. and Kyong-Jee Kim. 2004. FutureDirections of Blended Learning in Higher Education andWorkplace Learning Settings. San Francisco: John J. Wileyand Sons.

Bosworth, Brian and Victoria Choitz. 2002. Held Back:How Student Aid Programs Fail Working Adults.Arlington, MA: Futureworks, LLC.

Bosworth, Brian and Victoria Choitz. 2004. Title X: ANew Federal-State Partnership in Higher Education forWorking Adults in the 21st Century. Arlington, MA:Futureworks, LLC.

References


Burgdorf, Barry D. and Kent Kosta. 2005. EliminatingComplexity and Inconsistency in Federal Financial AidPrograms for Higher Education Students: Towards a MoreStrategic Approach. Unpublished Paper, University ofTexas.

Carnevale, Anthony P. and Donna M. Deroschers. 2004.“Benefits and Barriers to College for Low-IncomeAdults.” In Low Income Adults in Profile: Improving LivesThrough Higher Education. Washington, DC: AmericanCouncil on Education, Center for Policy Analysis.

Center for Community College Policy. 2000. StateFunding for Community Colleges: A Fifty State Survey.Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Center for the Study of Education Policy and the IllinoisStudent Assistance Commission. 2004. Summary andRecommendations from Symposium on Financing HigherEducation: Putting Illinois in the National Context.Bloomington, IL: Illinois State University.

Choitz, Victoria and Rebecca Widom. 2003. MoneyMatters: How Financial Aid Affects NontraditionalStudents at Community Colleges. New York, NY: MDRC.

Choitz, Victoria, Laura Dowd, and Bridget Terry Long.2004. Getting Serious About Lifelong Learning. Arlington,MA: FutureWorks, LLC.

Choy, Susan. 2002. Nontraditional Undergraduates.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics.

Chronicle of Higher Education. 2004. Survey of PublicOpinion on Higher Education. February-March.

Collins, Michael. 2006. By the Numbers: State Goals ForIncreasing Postsecondary Attainment. Boston: Jobs for theFuture.

Committee for Economic Development. 2005. Cracks inthe Education Pipeline: A Business Leader’s Guide to HigherEducation. Washington, DC: Committee for EconomicDevelopment.

Cook, Bryan and Jacqueline E. King. 2004. Low IncomeAdults in Profile: Improving Lives Through HigherEducation. Washington, DC: American Council onEducation, Center for Policy Analysis.

Cook, Bryan and Jacqueline E. King. 2005. ImprovingLives Through Higher Education: Campus Programs andPolicies for Low-Income Adults. Washington, DC:American Council on Education, Center for PolicyAnalysis.

Council for Adult and Experiential Learning and theAmerican Council on Education. 1993. Adult DegreePrograms: Quality Issues, Problem Areas, and Action Steps.Chicago: CAEL.

Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. 2005.Serving Adult Learners in Higher Education. Chicago:CAEL.

Day, Jennifer Cheesman and Eric C. Newburger. 2002.The Big Payoff: Educational Attainment and SyntheticEstimates of Work-Life Earnings. Washington, DC: U.S.Census Bureau

Dillon, Sam. 2005. “Closing of College ShadowsCandidate for Governor,” New York Times. November17.

Dillon, Sam. 2006. “Online Colleges Receive a Boostfrom Congress,” New York Times. March 1.

Eaton, Judith. 2005. “Transfer of Credit: Taking a FreshLook or Continuing the Controversy?” InsideAccreditation with the President of CHEA. 1:4. November4. Accessed February 26, 2006 athttp://www.chea.org/ia/IA_110405.htm.

Eduventures. 2004. Postsecondary Learning Markets &Opportunities 2004. Boston: Eduventures, LLC.

Eduventures. 2005. Developing Effective Channels toCorporate and Government Markets, Part I. Boston:Eduventures, LLC.

Eduventures. 2005a. Employer Policies and Practices forLearning and Development. Boston: Eduventures, LLC.

Eduventures. 2005b. Higher Education Survey onLeadership, Innovation and Technology. Boston:Eduventures, LLC.

Eduventures. 2005c. Assessing Consumer Attitudes towardOnline Education. Boston: Eduventures, LLC.

Eduventures. 2005d. Online Distance Education MarketUpdate 2005: Growth in the Age of Competition. Boston:Eduventures, LLC.

Eduventures. 2006. Assessing Consumer Demand forAdult, Continuing, and Professional Education, Part I.Boston: Eduventures, LLC.

Employment Policy Foundation. 2004. Ninth-AnnualWorkplace Report: The American Workplace 2004.Washington, DC: Employment Policy Foundation.


Ewell, Peter. 2001. Accreditation and Student LearningOutcomes: A Proposed Point of Departure. CHEAOccasional Paper. Washington, DC: Council for HigherEducation Accreditation.

Fitzgerald, Joan. 2006. Moving Up in the New Economy:Career Ladders for U.S. Workers. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press

Florida Community Colleges and Workforce Education,KnowledgeWorks Foundation, and North CarolinaCommunity College System. 2006. “A National UnitRecord Data System: State Experience Can Strengthenthis Proposal.” Statement to the Secretary’s Commissionon the Future of Higher Education. August 7.

Goldberger, Susan. 2005. From the Entry Level to LicensedPractical Nurse: Four Case Studies of Career Ladders inHealth Care. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.

Hecker, Daniel. 2005. “Occupational EmploymentProjections to 2014.” Monthly Labor Review Online.Bureau of Labor Statistics. 128(11):70-101.

Hersh, Richard H. 2005. “What Does College Teach?”Atlantic Monthly. Accessed February 26, 2006, atwww.theatlantic.com/doc/20511/measuring-college-quality/2.

Horn, Laura. 1996. Nontraditional Undergraduates,Trends in Enrollment From 1986 to 1992 and Persistenceand Attainment Among 1989–90 Beginning PostsecondaryStudents. NCES 97–578. Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office.

Institute for Higher Education Policy. 1996. Life AfterForty: A New Portrait of Today’s—and Tomorrow’s—Postsecondary Students. Washington, DC: Author.

ISAC Research Reports. 2001. Initiative to Aid IllinoisAdult Learners. Springfield, IL: Illinois StudentAssistance Commission. Summer.

Jasnick, Scott. 2006. “The Abandonment of CommunityColleges.” Inside Higher Ed.www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/01/16/cc

Jobs for the Future. 2004. Breaking Through: HelpingLow-Skilled Adults Enter and Succeed in College andCareers. Boston: Author.

Jones, Dennis, et al. 2003. Policies in Sync:Appropriations, Tuition, and Financial Aid for HigherEducation: A Compilation of Commissioned Papers.Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for HigherEducation.

Jones, Dennis. 2003. “Financing in Sync: Policy Brief:Policy Insights. Boulder, CO: Western InterstateCommission for Higher Education.

Kane, Thomas J. and Peter R. Orszag. 2004. FinancingPublic Higher Education: Short Term-and Long-TermChallenges. Washington, DC: Ford Policy Forum,Brookings Institution.

Kaufman, Rhoda S. 1994. “State Funding forCommunity College Noncredit Continuing EducationCourses.” Catalyst. 24(2). Richmond, VA: VirginiaPolytechnic Institute.

Kazis, Richard and Marty Leibowitz. 2003. ChangingCourses: Instructional Innovations That Help Low-IncomeStudents Succeed in Community College. New York:MDRC.

Kelly, Patrick J. with Lumina Foundation for Education.2005. As America Becomes More Diverse: The Impact ofState Higher Education Inequality. Boulder, CO: NationalCenter for Higher Education Management Systems.

Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education. 2006.Accessed February 27 at: http://www.cpe.ky.gov.

Knowles, Malcolm S. 1970. Modern Practice of AdultEducation: Andragogy Versus Pedagogy. Chicago: FollettPublishing Company.

Lingenfelter, Paul and Richard A. Voorhees. 2003. AdultLearners and State Policy. Denver, CO: State HigherEducation Executive Officers and Chicago, IL: Councilfor Adult and Experiential Learning.

Lingenfelter, Paul E., David L. Wright, and Tara Bisel.2005. State Higher Education Finance FY 2004. Boulder,CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers.

Matthews, Dewayne. 2005. “Toward a New Way ofThinking: Quality, Productivity, and College Costs.” InDickeson, Robert, ed. Course Corrections: Experts OfferSolutions to the College Cost Crisis. Indianapolis: LuminaFoundation for Education.

Matus-Grossman, Lisa and Susan Gooden, et al. 2002.Opening Doors: Students’ Perspectives on Juggling Work,Family and College. New York: MDRC.

Matus-Grossman, Lisa and Susan Tinsley Gooden. 2001.Opening Doors to Earning Credentials: Impressions ofCommunity College Access and Retention from Low-WageWorkers. New York: MDRC.


McCabe, Robert H. 2000. No One to Waste: A Report toPublic Decision Makers and Community College Leaders.Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Michelau, Demaree K. 2003. Tuition and Fees Policies inthe Nation’s Public Community Colleges. Boulder, CO:Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.

Murdock, Steve. 2004. The Texas Challenge in theTwenty-First Century: Implications of Population Changefor the Future of Texas. PowerPoint presentation.SanAntonio: The Institute for Demographic andSocioeconomic Research, College of Business, Universityof Texas at San Antonio.

National Center for Education Statistics. 2002. Non-Traditional Graduates. Digest of Educational Statistics.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. 2004. Digest ofEducational Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. 2000.“National Household Education Surveys Program 1991,1995, and 1999: Adult Education Survey.” Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.2002. Losing Ground: A National Status Report on theAffordability of American Higher Education. San Jose, CA:Author.

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.2004. Losing Ground: A National Status Report on theAffordability of American Higher Education—Update,2004. San Jose, CA: Author.

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.2005. Income of U.S. Workforce Projected to Decline IfEducation Doesn’t Improve. San Jose, CA: Author.

National Education Association Research Center. 2003.Why are College Prices Increasing and What Should We DoAbout It? Update. 9(5). Washington, DC: NationalEducation Association.

National Education Association. 2006. “FinancingHigher Education: A Crisis in State Funding.” HigherEducation.http://www2.nea.org/he/fiscalcrisis/index.html

National Governors Association. 2002. Assisting Laid-OffWorkers in a Changing Economy. Issues Brief.Washington, DC: Author.

New York Times. 2006. “Proof of Learning in College.”February 26.

Noel Levitz. 2005. 2005 National Student Satisfactionand Priorities Report. Accessed March 8, 2006 atwww.noellevitz.com/Papers+and+Research/Research/ResearchLibrary/2005+National+Satisfaction+Report.htm.

Public Policy Associates, Inc. 2004. Lifelong LearningAccounts Demonstration Interim Report One. Report pre-pared for the Council for Adult and ExperientialLearning. Lansing, MI: Author.

Reed, Sally. 2005. “Lifelong Lessons: Barriers Remain,Especially Financial Ones.” Lumina Foundation Focus.Winter. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation forEducation.

Reed, Sally. 2005. “Lifelong Lessons: Learning for Life,”Lumina Foundation Focus. Winter. Indianapolis, IN:Lumina Foundation for Education.

Rooney, Kathryn. 2002. Profile of Undergraduates in U.S.Postsecondary Institutions: 1999–2000. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics.

Scarafiotti, Carol. 2005. “Dreams Detoured:Community Colleges, A Vital and Affordable Resource,Also Feel the Pinch.” Lumina Foundation Focus. Fall.Indianapolis, In: Lumina Foundation for Education.

Silber, Jeffrey and Avram Fisher. 2005. Education andTraining. New York: Harris Nesbitt.

Silber, Jeffrey and Avram Fisher. 2006. The Report Card.New York: Harris Nesbitt.

Silva, Tim, Margaret Calahan, and Natalie Lacireno-Paquet. 1998. “Adult Education Participation Decisionsand Barriers.” Review of Conceptual Frameworks andEmpirical Studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation, National Center for Education Statistics.

Sperling, John and Robert Tucker. 1997. For-ProfitHigher Education: Developing a World Class Workforce.New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

St. John, Edward P., et al. 2004. Expanding College Access:The Impact of State Finance Strategies. Indianapolis, IN:Lumina Foundation for Education.

St. John, Edward P. and Tina J. Tuttle. 2004. FinancialAid and Postsecondary Opportunity for Nontraditional Age,Pre-College Students: The Roles of Information and theEducation Delivery Systems. Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity.


State University of New York/Albany. 2000. “FinancingHigher Education in New York State.” Higher EducationPolicy Brief, 01-2000. Albany, NY: State Department ofEducation.

Twigg, Carol A. 2005. Increasing Success for UnderservedStudents: Redesigning Introductory Courses. SaratogaSprings, NY: National Center for AcademicTransformation.

U.S Census Bureau. 2002. Public Use MicrodataSamples (Based on the 2000 Decennial Census).Accessed at:www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/pums.html

U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. American Community Survey.Accessed at http://www.census.gov/acs/www/

U.S. Department of Education. 2006. IntegratedPostsecondary Education Data System. AccessedFebruary 27, 2006 at:http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/AboutIPEDS.asp.

U.S. Department of Education. 2006. Financial Aid forPostsecondary Students: Accreditation in the UnitedStates. Overview of Accreditation. Accessed February 27,2006 at:http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation.html#Overview.

U.S. Department of Education. 2005. “SecretarySpellings Announces New Commission on the Future ofHigher Education.” Press Release. Accessed February 27,2006 at: http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleas-es/2005/09/09192005.html.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 2003. Federal StudentAid. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 2003. Federal StudentAid: Expanding Eligibility for Less Than Halftime StudentsCould Increase Program Costs, But Benefits Uncertain.GAO-03-905: Highlights of GAO-03-905. Washington,DC: Author.

University Continuing Education Association. 2004.Lifelong Learning Trends. Washington, DC: Author.

Wang, Shaoli and Darrel A. Clowes. 1994. “FinancingCommunity Services and Continuing Education: AnHistorical Review.” Catalyst. 24(2). Richmond, VA:Virginia Polytechnic Institute.

Warford, Larry. 2002. Lifelong Learning: A FundingPriority. Phoenix, AZ: League for Innovation.

Wellman, Jane. 2003. Statewide Higher EducationAccountability: Issues, Options, and Strategies for Success.Washington, DC: National Governors Association.

Wiley, John D. 2006. Self-Regulation: Past, Present, andFuture. Address to Council on Higher EducationAccreditation Annual Conference, San Francisco:January 24. Accessed March 14, 2006 at: http://chancel-lor.wisc.edu/CHEAtalk.html.

Zumeta, William. 2005. “Higher Education Funding:Stagnation Continues; Financial RestructuringUnderway.” National Education Association 2004Almanac of Higher Education


1 Job tenure for men has dropped significantly in recentdecades, from 5.9 years per job to 5.0 between 1982 and2000. At the same time, job tenure for women has increased.The trends for women appear to be a function of the rise ofthe percentage of women in the labor force since the 1970s.

2 Persistence in the first year is the challenge: differences in ratesof attrition between the two groups of adult college studentswere similar after the first year.

3 Policymakers and others have been concerned by the emer-gence of sometimes over-zealous and occasionally fraudulentrecruiting and/or financial aid practices. These very realexcesses are not adversely affecting overall growth of the sec-tor. Nor should the practices of unscrupulous operators over-shadow the value delivered by legitimate and ethical institu-tions.

4 In 1999, 55 percent of all adult students and 59 percent oflow-income adult students had dependent children. Fewerthan 30 percent of postsecondary institutions offer on-cam-pus child care. Institutions that offer child care have impor-tant gaps in services—child care is intended for institutions’employees, many child care centers have limited capacity anddo not offer care during late-evening and weekend classes, orhave age restrictions that allow toddlers but not infants orolder children.

5 These data must be interpreted cautiously. Many of theschools with the highest rates of completion are not accredit-ed by regional bodies, raising issues of quality. In addition,for-profit students are in school full-time, many at theiremployers’ expense, for particular certificates, while commu-nity college students are attending part time. Similarly, selec-tivity in admissions among for-profits means that a segmentof the adult population with very low basic skills will bereferred to adult education providers and not admitted.

6 We are unable to characterize the extent to which the prac-tices we describe have diffused through either two- or four-year institutions. It is safe to say that there is widespreadexperimentation with new approaches to organizing anddelivering instruction in ways that are more flexible.However, as with so many innovations, the challenge is inintroducing not just a pilot or a boutique program, but alsoto rethink institutional practice so that specific innovationsare more broadly available and are part of a more concertedeffort to address the needs of large numbers of potential orexisting students.

7 While course-taking at multiple institutions has risen, thepatterns vary for different groups. The vast majority of stu-dents who start their education at a four-year institution, par-ticularly traditional age students, finish their degree at the

school where they started. They may be taking courses else-where, but they have not transferred or been “mobile” stu-dents. For adult students and for students who begin at two-year institutions, mobility is much more of an issue.

8 As seems feasible in the DOL-proposed new “CareerAdvancement Accounts.”

9 Most colleges and universities also participate in the federalwork-study program, which provides part-time jobs to full-time or part-time students. Adult students usually workalready and rarely are in a position to benefit from the work-study program.

10 There are some federal grants available through non-HEAprograms, including tuition assistance for active-duty armedforces personnel, Reserve Officers Training Corps members,and education and training payments for veterans anddependents. There are also Americorps national servicegrants, a variety of small programs for Native Americans, andmodestly funded NSF and Health Service grants for graduatestudies. In 2003-04, these grants amounted to about $3.7 bil-lion.

11 There is an additional program, the PLUS Loans, availablewithout subsidy for parents of dependent undergraduateswho are enrolled at least half time, up to the amount of needminus other aid. In 2003-04, the interest rate for loans inrepayment was 4.17 percent and about $7.1 billion wasloaned. In addition, there are a few small and highly targetedloan programs for health professionals available throughHHS.

12 The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, signed by the Presidenton February 8, 2006, will increase the interest rates on allthese federal loans, probably effective on July 1, 2006.However, because of technical inconsistencies in the act, theDepartment of Education will have to clarify these new ratesby administrative ruling.

13 Federal tax laws also permit a variety of tax-advantaged col-lege savings plans (i.e., Section 529 savings plans, educationIRAs, and penalty-free IRA withdrawals) that are not dis-cussed here.

14 A four-person family with one student needs at least$18,000 of income to have any tax liability, and it wouldneed income of about $32,000 to realize the full benefit.

15 The states are Delaware, Michigan, New York, Ohio,Vermont, and West Virginia (Bosworth and Choitz 2002).

16 The GAO report was unable to determine average expendi-tures per participant due to the multiplicity of programs andconflicting definitions. There were many different kinds ofproviders used: community colleges and secondary school

Endnotes


vocational centers were frequent providers, but many boardsalso authorized training by community-based organizations,private training firms, and proprietary schools. The GAOfound that most of the 600 local workforce boards had estab-lished time limits and dollar limits for WIA-financed train-ing; these limitations varied widely. According to the GAO, itwas not possible to determine how many individuals receivedacademic degrees or certificates or industry-recognized certifi-cations.

17 FTE, or full-time equivalency enrollment, is a standard unitof measure for most postsecondary reimbursement or alloca-tion calculations. It is, of course, a smaller number than totalpostsecondary enrollment, which in 2004 was just over 14million.

18 These figures are in 2004 constant dollars.19 No states fund hobby, avocational, or recreational, non-cred-it classes.

20 Ironically, the workforce development departments are themain areas where employers have a say in the design of educa-tional services to the workforce. In fact, some communitycolleges point to their workforce development programs asthe “industry responsive” or “industry driven” components of

their services. The effect of this is to let the traditional aca-demic, degree-based programs off the hook for industryresponsiveness. A clear institutional financing policy onworkforce development would help end the isolation of aca-demic programs from industry.

21 For example, until recently the information technology cur-ricula that led to certifications in Microsoft, Novell, or Ciscosystems were by and large delivered as non-credit courses anddid not—without what amounted to an internal articulationagreement—count toward credit in an academic computerscience program.

22 As seems feasible in the DOL-proposed new “CareerAdvancement Accounts.”

23 This data is gathered through the Graduation Rate Survey,conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics.

24 For more information on how a national unit record systemmight be structured and managed to support improvementand state and institutional decision making, see FloridaCommunity Colleges and Workforce Education,KnowledgeWorks Foundation, and North CarolinaCommunity College System (2006).

Jobs for the Future88 Broad StreetBoston, MA 02110617.728.4446www.jff.org

adult learners in higher education: barriers to success

Documents