College Graduation Rates: Behind the Numbers - American Council on Education
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
6 3 5
7 1
94
College Graduation Rates:
Behind the Numbers
1
0
2 American Council on Education
Center for Policy Analysis© September 2010 American Council on Education ACE and the American Council on Education are registered marks of the American Council on Education and cannot be used or reproduced without the express written consent of the American Council on Education. American Council on Education One Dupont Circle NW Washington, DC 20036 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
College Graduation Rates:
Behind the Numbers
Bryan Cook
Natalie PullaroTable of Contents
Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
History of National Graduation Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Data Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Institutional Databases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
IPEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
IPEDS’ Graduation Rate Survey (GRS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Advantages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Implications for Policy Makers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
National Student Clearinghouse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Calculating a Graduation Rate with Clearinghouse Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Advantages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Implications for Policy Makers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
State Data Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Advantages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Implications for Policy Makers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Non-institutional Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Advantages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Implications for Policy Makers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
National School-to-College Longitudinal Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Advantages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Implications for Policy Makers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Institutional Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Account for Students Still on Track to Graduate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Alternative Measures to Graduation Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Expand the Focus Beyond Undergraduate Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table: Graduation Rate Databases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Making Graduation Rates Matter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Acknowledgments
T he following colleagues participated in the review process for this report: Jacqueline King, Mikyung Ryu,
and Young Kim of the American Council on Education; Cliff Adelman of the Institute for Higher Education
Policy; Jane Wellman of the Delta Cost Project; Jeff Tanner of the National Student Clearinghouse; Victor
Borden of Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis; Hans P. L’Orange of the State Higher Education
Executive Officers; and Tom Weko, Andrew Mary, and Roz Korb of the National Center for Education
Statistics.
C o llege G raduatio n Rates: B EHIND t he numbers iii Am e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o nExecutive Summary
D uring the past decade, state and federal policy
makers have pushed for more accountability
from colleges and universities. As the importance of
institutional success. Some of the major observations
of this report include the following:
• Graduation rate data are a relatively new phe-
a college degree has increased along with the costs nomenon; the first year these data were col-
to earn one, policy makers are looking at student lected by the Department of Education was
outcomes as a measure of the quality of postsecond- 1996.
ary education institutions. One outcome measure • Although none of the existing national databases
that has received most of the attention is graduation can provide a graduation rate that accounts for
rates. all students, all the databases do provide valu-
Since President Obama stated that “by 2020, able information that contributes to our under-
America will once again have the highest proportion standing of student success.
of college graduates in the world,” postsecondary • Much of the policy conversation on graduation
graduation rates have taken on increased importance rates has focused on undergraduate education.
and scrutiny. Because the issue of graduation rates Very little is known about graduation rates of
has long been a favorite topic of higher education graduate students.
policy researchers, there is no shortage of reports • Alternative measures, such as a ratio of degrees
that detail the disparity in graduation rates by race, awarded to total enrollment, are frequently used
income, and institutional type, as well as the limita- to evaluate institutional success.
tions of the data most often used to calculate gradu- • Most conversations on the six-year graduation
ation rates. rates do not include discussion of the percentage
Unlike other reports on graduation rates, the of students still enrolled. It is important to con-
focus of this report is not on disparities in gradua- sider the share of students still on track to grad-
tion rates, how to improve graduation rates, or how uate after the six-year point.
to fix the way in which graduation rates are cal-
culated. The purpose of this report is to provide a Overall, this report highlights the complexities of
layperson’s guide to the most commonly reported measuring what many policy makers view as a
graduation rates and the databases used to calculate simple compliance metric with the existing national
these rates. More specifically, this report provides databases. Just because the existing databases used
policy makers and policy researchers with a history to calculate graduation rates were not designed with
of the databases that are most often used to calcu- the current policy demands in mind does not render
late graduation rates as well as the advantages and them useless. The databases referenced in this report
disadvantages of each database (this information also provide valuable information on graduation rates;
can be found in a summary table in the appendices). however, as the disadvantages of these databases
Additionally this report suggests several factors for reveal, users of these data should take care in using
policy makers to consider before using graduation them to measure the overall effectiveness of
rate data from existing databases as a way to assess postsecondary education institutions.
C o llege G raduatio n Rates: B EHIND t he numbers iv Am e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o nIntroduction
G raduation rates have increasingly become
a key component of the higher education
accountability conversation. A 2006 report from the
Key Terms
U.S. Secretary of Education’s Commission on the According to data from the Baccalaureate and
Future of Higher Education stated that among the Beyond Longitudinal Study, the average time
“dramatic” changes that higher education needed to degree for a bachelor’s degree is six years.
was improvement of the “persistent gap between Although comparable data are not available for
the college attendance and graduation rates of low- associate degrees, it is widely accepted that the
income Americans and their more affluent peers.” average time to an associate degree is longer
While then-U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret than two years. As such, this report does not
Spelling’s commission was not the first voice of use the more common nomenclature of two-
concern about the graduation rates of students at and four-year institutions to describe colleges
colleges and universities—in particular, disparities and universities. In this report, a baccalaureate
in completion by race and income—it helped move institution refers to an institution that awards
the conversation on postsecondary accountability bachelor’s degrees or higher, and associate
from input measures (e.g., access and enrollment) institutions are those that award associate
to output measures (e.g., persistence and graduation degrees. Although these labels are similar to
rates). Since the commission report was released, those in the Carnegie Classification, they do not
articles, reports, blogs, and even some state and have the same meaning.
federal legislation have called for more institutional
accountability and better consumer information Graduation rates versus attainment rates
on graduation rates. Some examples include the In February 2009, President Obama stated that by
following: 2020, the United States would have the highest
educational attainment rate in the world. Since
• The American Graduation Initiative, proposed that statement, many reports, presentations, and
by the Obama administration (but not passed), keynotes have referenced this goal and discussed
called for states and colleges to “establish numerous ways to achieve it. However, some
quantifiable targets for improving graduation mistakenly use attainment rates and graduation
rates” in order to access available federal funds. rates as synonymous terms. Graduation rates are
• The 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act a measure of the share of students who enter
called for wider disclosure of institutional college and graduate within a certain number
graduation rates for consumer information. of years. Educational attainment rates are a
• A 2009 report from the American Enterprise measure of the share of the U.S. population
Institute1 states that graduation rates “convey that has earned a postsecondary degree.
important information…” and should be “the Although graduation rates affect U.S. educational
beginning of a deeper inquiry into college attainment rates, they are two separate measures,
success.” calculated in two different ways. This report
• In 2009, a blogger for the D.C. College focuses on postsecondary graduation rates.
Admissions Examiner web site wrote, “One of
1
Hess, F., Schneider, M., Kelly, A., & Carey, K. (2009). Diplomas and dropouts: Which colleges actually graduate their students (and which ones don’t).
Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
C o llege G raduatio n Rates: B EHIND t he numbers 1 Am e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o nthe scariest numbers in postsecondary education ing graduation rate measures and the databases that
is the national six-year college graduation rate” provide this increasingly important information.
and that “graduation rates should be key factors The purpose of this report, therefore, is threefold.
in college selection.”2 First, it will provide a detailed overview of the
• A 2010 report by Fastweb and Maguire various sources of graduation rate data. Second,
Associates3 found that among 23 criteria of and more importantly, it will explain the positive
institutional quality, high school seniors chose and negative aspects of each of these databases (a
graduation rates as the fifth most important summary of the overview of databases, showing the
indicator of institutional quality, ahead of positives and negatives of each, can be found in a
factors such as graduate school placement, a table in the appendices). Third, it will offer several
rigorous core curriculum, existence of an honors factors to consider before using graduation rates to
program, and college rankings in U.S. News & determine an institution’s
World Report and other college guides. level of success. The Before policy makers formally
• Twenty-two states have promised to develop goal of this report is make graduation rates a high-
specific plans to improve their college to help policy makers stakes measure of institutional
completion rates by participating in the better understand the
accountability, they need to
Complete College America Alliance of States. challenges inherent in
better understand existing
• The National Governors Association recently using current graduation
announced its Compete to Complete initiative, rate data to determine or graduation rate measures.
which focuses on increasing the number of inform federal or state
students in the United States who complete policy decisions regarding postsecondary education
college degrees and certificates. institutions.
• During the 2010 National Collegiate Athletic Two reports from the National Center for
Association (NCAA) basketball tournament, U.S. Education Statistics (NCES; the Department of
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan not only Education division that is responsible for collecting
criticized the graduation rates of student athletes information from colleges and universities)4 based
but also suggested that NCAA teams that fail to on separate NCES databases relay the complexities
graduate 40 percent of their players should be of graduation-rate data that confront policy makers.
ineligible for post-season competition. One report, based on the Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS), shows that the six-
It is clear in nearly every conversation about higher year graduation rate at baccalaureate institutions
education accountability that graduation rates are for students entering in 1995 to pursue a bachelor’s
increasingly viewed as a critical, if not the critical, degree was 56.4 percent.5 A second report, which
measure of both student and institutional success. used the Beginning Postsecondary Student (BPS)
However, before policy makers formally make grad- study, states that the six-year graduation rate of
uation rates a high-stakes measure of institutional bachelor’s degree–seeking students who enrolled in
accountability, they need to better understand exist- a baccalaureate institution in 1995 was 65.6 percent.6
2
Griesemer, N. (2009). Graduation rates should be key factors in college selection. Examiner.com. Retrieved from www.examiner.com/college-
admissions-in-washington-dc/graduation-rates-should-be-key-factors-college-selection.
3
Maguire Associates (2010). Students’ application choices & college preferences in the 2010 admissions cycle: Results from the 2010 college decision
impact survey.
4
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education in the United States
and other nations. NCES is located within the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences.
5
Knapp, L. G., Kelly-Reid, J. E., and Whitmore, R. W. (2006). Enrollment in postsecondary institutions, fall 2004; graduation rates, 1998 & 2001
cohorts; and financial statistics, fiscal year 2004 (NCES 2006-155). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Statistics.
6
Berkner, L., He, S., & Forrest Cataldi, E. (2002). Descriptive summary of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students: Six years later (NCES 2003–
151). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics..
C o llege G raduatio n Rates: B EHIND t he numbers 2 Am e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o nHow can two reports from the same federal agency of the pros and cons of each database on policy provide two different graduation rates for the decisions regarding graduation rates. The final same cohort? This report will answer that question section provides several factors that policy makers by providing a detailed overview of the national should keep in mind when considering the use databases used to calculate these graduation rates. of graduation rates as a measure for institutional The first section of this report provides a brief effectiveness. overview of the history of graduation rates in the United States. The second section gives a detailed overview of the current sources for graduation rate data along with the positive and negative aspects of each. This section also discusses the implications C o llege G raduatio n Rates: B EHIND t he numbers 3 Am e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n
History of National Graduation Rates
R eporting graduation rates to the federal govern-
ment is a relatively new requirement. Before 1985,
no national-level institutional data on college and uni-
• The completion or graduation rate for students
at the institution, broken down by race/ethnicity
and sex.
versity graduation rates existed. In 1985, the NCAA • The average completion or graduation rate for
began requiring its member schools to report gradu- the four most recent completing or graduating
ation rate data so that the association could compare classes of students at the institution who
the academic records and performances of student received athletics-related student aid, broken
athletes with the overall student body. These data
7
down by race/ethnicity and sex in the following
were not publically available and were released only categories: basketball, football, baseball, cross-
to NCAA member institutions that reported their data. country/track, and all other sports combined.
In 1988, U.S. Senators Bill Bradley and Edward • The average completion or graduation rate for
Kennedy proposed bill S.2498, later referred to as the four most recent completing or graduating
the Student Athlete Right-to-Know Act.8 (The same classes of students at the institution, broken
bill was introduced in the House down by race/ethnicity and sex.
by Representative Tom McMillen.) Before 1985, no national-
This bill was the first to require level institutional data The impetus for this legislation was
higher education institutions that on college and university a concern among Congress that the
receive Title IV funds to submit an increasing revenue from college athlet-
graduation rates existed.
annual report to the Secretary of ics was “so great that the educational
Education containing information mission of the university is too easily
on graduation rates. Specifically, the bill required forgotten.”9 A 1989 report prepared by the General
schools to report the following: Accounting Office (GAO)10 to help inform congressio-
• The number of students at the institution, nal deliberations about this bill found that the gradu-
broken down by race/ethnicity and sex. ation rate for men’s basketball and football players
• The number of students who received athletics- at the NCAA’s largest member schools (formerly
related student aid, broken down by race/ Division I) were lower than the graduation rates for
ethnicity and sex in the following sports: all students.11 The view of the committee was that
basketball, football, baseball, cross-country/ “student athletes about to enter college are consum-
track, and all other sports combined. ers” and “as such are entitled to relevant and basic
• The completion or graduation rates for students information in order to make an informed choice
at the institution who received athletics-related about which college to attend.”12
student aid, broken down by race/ethnicity and On November 9, 1990, Congress passed the
sex in the following sports: basketball, football, Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act.
baseball, cross-country/track and all other sports Although the original intent of this legislation was
combined. to protect the educational interests of student ath-
7
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1989). Student athletes: Most schools meet proposed academic performance reporting requirements. Washington, DC:
Author.
8
Student Athlete Right-to-Know Act. Report together with Minority Views. One Hundred First Congress. First Session. (1989).
9
Student Athlete Right-to-Know Act.
10
General Accounting Office. Student athletes.
11
This report uses data collected by both the NCAA and National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) for their respective member schools.
12
Student Athlete Right-to-Know Act.
C o llege G raduatio n Rates: B EHIND t he numbers 4 Am e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o nletes, it was believed that this information would be
more broadly useful to students making decisions
regarding postsecondary education institutions (thus,
the removal of “athlete” from the title of the bill).
According to NCES, the federal collection of gradu-
ation rate data is done specifically to help institu-
tions respond to the requirements of this bill.13 It
should be noted that beginning in 2007, the IPEDS
Graduation Rate Survey (GRS) no longer required
institutions to report graduation rates for scholar-
ship athletes.14 Now, this information is collected and
reported by the NCAA.
13
http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/about/.
14
http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/?charindex=G.
C o llege G raduatio n Rates: B EHIND t he numbers 5 Am e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o nData Sources
A lthough graduation rates have become a major
topic during the past decade, only a handful
of data sources can be used to calculate graduation
Each of these databases is slightly different in terms
of who is included in the cohort to calculate a grad-
uation rate, meaning that depending on which
rates at a national level. These data sources include: database is used, it is likely to produce a different
• Required annual federal surveys of institutions. graduation rate. As the earlier example suggests, the
• Three types of federal surveys given to a sample differences can be relatively large. Because of their
population of students: different methodologies, each database has advan-
• A cross-sectional survey (looks at a one-year tages and disadvantages in calculating national grad-
snapshot). uation rates.
• A grade cohort longitudinal survey (follows a Because much of the national policy discussion is
specific grade of students over time, e.g., 12th focused on institutional accountability, it is important
graders). to acknowledge that not all the databases discussed
• An event cohort longitudinal survey (tracks an in this report are able to generate institution-level
event over time, e.g., beginning college for the graduation rates. However, as this report highlights,
first time). the databases that do not provide institution-level
• Data submitted voluntarily by a large number of data still provide valuable data that can inform
institutions to a private nonprofit organization. policy conversations regarding graduation rates. For
• Data collected by individual states. organizational clarity, this section is split into two
discussions: databases that can provide institution-
level data and those that cannot.
C o llege G raduatio n Rates: B EHIND t he numbers 6 Am e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o nInstitutional Databases
IPEDS IPEDS’ Graduation Rate Survey (GRS)
The enactment of the Student Right-to-Know Act
The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (SRK) in 1990 signified the beginning of the federal
(IPEDS) is a set of interrelated surveys conducted government’s involvement in collecting graduation
annually by the U.S. Department of Education’s rates from institutions (Gold & Albert, 2006).15 The
NCES. Federal law requires that institutions partici- federal regulations guiding SRK require institutions
pating in federal student aid programs report data to track a cohort of first-time, full-time, degree- or
on enrollments, degree completions, graduation certificate-seeking students who enter in the fall of a
rates, faculty and staff, finances, institutional prices, given academic year. Additionally, “an institution that
and student financial aid. All information collected determines its mission includes providing substan-
through IPEDS is publically available. tial preparation for students to enroll in another eli-
The IPEDS system dates back to 1986. Prior gible institution must prepare the transfer-out rate of
to that time, NCES administered two distinct its certificate- or degree-seeking, first-time, full-time
institutional surveys to undergraduate students.” Because SRK focuses on
postsecondary institutions the degree completion of student athletes in relation
IPEDS was designed to that were not compatible, to the non-athlete student population, the legislative
obtain comparable data from one of which was the language requires this data be collected for both ath-
all sectors of postsecondary Higher Education General letes and non-athletes.
education. Information Survey (HEGIS), The IPEDS GRS survey is the most widely used
which began in 1966. and cited data source for graduation rates. Because
HEGIS had many of the these data are frequently used to inform federal
same survey components as IPEDS. Although most policy decisions, it is critical that policy makers and
accredited colleges and universities submitted data education researchers are aware of their benefits and
to HEGIS, participation was not statutorily required. limitations. The following is an outline of the pros
The second survey, the Vocational Education Data and cons of using IPEDS GRS.
System (VEDS), was administered to non-collegiate
postsecondary education institutions and collected
data primarily from private, for-profit institutions. Advantages
A redesign of these two surveys resulted in a
single survey system—IPEDS—that was designed Annual institution-level data collection. IPEDS rep-
to obtain comparable data from all sectors of resents the only federal collection of data on col-
postsecondary education. Due in part to the growth leges and universities that occurs every year. Annual
of Title IV financial aid programs in the late 1980s collection of graduation rates ensures that data are
and early ’90s, the 1992 reauthorization of the available for year-to-year comparisons of trends that
Higher Education Act required all colleges and can help inform the policy decisions of higher educa-
universities that receive Title IV funds to submit their tion leaders and state and federal policy makers.
data to IPEDS.
15
Gold, L. & Albert, L. (2006, March). Graduation rates as a measure of college accountability. American Academic 2(1), 89–106.
C o llege G raduatio n Rates: B EHIND t he numbers 7 Am e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o nMandated participation. IPEDS GRS is the only enrollment trends, staffing, instructional expenditures,
reporting of graduation rates that is federally and other institutional characteristics to develop an
required by law. Because all institutions that receive analysis of institutional differences in graduation rates.
Title IV funds participate, the survey captures all
institutional sectors of higher education from elite Ability to disaggregate by race and gender. IPEDS
private baccalaureate universities to vocational data allow for the disaggregating of graduation rate
schools. This broad representation allows research- data by race and ethnicity as well as gender. This is
ers and policy makers to compare graduation rates critical to tracking the disparities that exist in degree
among similar institution types and examine specific completion between minorities and whites as well as
variables that contribute to a graduation rate. between men and women.
Institutional comparisons. IPEDS is the only compre-
hensive federal database on colleges and universities Disadvantages
that allows for institution-level comparisons of gradua- Although IPEDS provides a wealth of valuable infor-
tion rates. Policy makers and researchers can combine mation on colleges and universities, there are several
these data with other IPEDS data resources, such as significant drawbacks to using IPEDS GRS to calcu-
late graduation rates.
Recent Extension in GRS cohort. The most discussed issue with the
Percent of Normal Time IPEDS GRS data is who is included in the cohort.
The cohort for calculating graduation rates includes
In the 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act, only first-time, full-time, degree-seeking students.
a significant change to the IPEDS GRS survey First-time students are those who have never previ-
occurred when the benchmarks for determining ously enrolled at a postsecondary education institu-
graduation rates were extended. This means that tion. The term full-time refers to students who were
institutions capture graduation rates not only at taking full course loads in the first semester of their
the mark of 150 percent of normal time, but also first year.16 This excludes any student who started
at the 200-percent mark. For example, bache- his or her first semester part time or who trans-
lor’s-degree completion will be measured after ferred from another postsecondary education institu-
both six and eight years. This will allow the GRS tion. Additionally, because most of the GRS cohorts
survey to capture more of the students who drop are based on fall enrollment, students who enroll
from full time to part time or stop out and take mid-semester or in the winter/spring semester are
longer than six years to graduate. excluded. These students represent 25 percent and
30 percent of community college and for-profit sector
The same extension applies to two-year pro- first-year enrollments, respectively.17
grams at associate degree–granting institutions. Transfer students are regarded differently in IPEDS
Associate-degree completion will be measured depending on the type of institution from which
after both three and four years. This extension they transfer. Associate degree–granting institutions
has a significant impact on community colleges with the mission to prepare students to transfer to a
because their students are more likely to enroll baccalaureate institution are allowed to count transfers
part time and take longer to finish. who completed the equivalent of a transfer preparatory
program18 as completers. However, students who
16
If a student begins as a full-time student but drops to part time, that student would still be considered part of the GRS cohort.
17
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Beginning Postsecondary Students Study, 2003 (analysis by author).
18
A transfer preparatory program is defined in 34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Student Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.8(b)(1)(ii) as “the
successful completion of at least a two-year program that is acceptable for full credit toward a bachelor’s degree and qualifies a student for admission
into the third year of a bachelor’s degree program.” The Secretary considers this the equivalent of an associate degree.
C o llege G raduatio n Rates: B EHIND t he numbers 8 Am e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o nattend baccalaureate institutions and transfer to another static. NCES uses Technical Review Panels (TRPs)19
postsecondary education institution, regardless of to learn how to make IPEDS data more useful for
whether it is an associate or baccalaureate institution, institutions and policy makers within the limitations
are not tracked and thus are counted as non-completers of the legislative language governing the data
for the institution of origin. Consequently, if a student collection. NCES convened a TRP in 2007 to explore
transfers from a baccalaureate institution to any other ways to revise the GRS, but no action was taken, as
institution and ultimately graduates, that student cannot the implementation of mandated changes to IPEDS
be included in the graduation rate of the school from as a result of the Higher Education Opportunity
which he or she graduated because the student was Act of 2008 took precedence over discretionary
not part of that institution’s original first-time, full-time changes to the GRS. Policy researchers have
GRS cohort. posited numerous ideas for addressing some of the
disadvantages of IPEDS, and among
Following the institution, not the stu- Several aspects of IPEDS the most discussed is one advanced
dent. Because the purpose of IPEDS GRS data make it imperfect by Clifford Adelman, a former
is to provide institutional data to the
for informing policy decisions researcher for the U.S. Department
federal government, the IPEDS GRS of Education (see page 28). His idea
related to national graduation
measures institutional graduation calls for modest adjustments to the
rates, not student graduation rates,
rates and institutional
current IPEDS model rather than
which is partly why transfer data are effectiveness. a complete overhaul of the GRS
not tracked or reported by baccalau- survey.
reate colleges and universities. What
this means is that IPEDS data provide the gradua- Inability to disaggregate by income. A major issue in
tion rate of students who start and finish at the same higher education is the disparities in enrollment, per-
institution, not a comprehensive graduation rate of sistence, and attainment among low-income students.
the cohort of students who started at the postsecond- IPEDS does not collect income data on students and
ary education institution in a given year. therefore does not have the ability to provide gradu-
ation rates by student income.
Purpose of GRS. Since its inception, the purpose of
the IPEDS GRS has been to fulfill the requirements
of the SRK legislation. Its statutory language provides Implications for Policy Makers
the basis for the GRS methodology. Because scholar- As stated previously, IPEDS is the most frequently
ship athletes are exclusively full time and are most used data for national graduation rates. As the only
often first-time students who rarely transfer, it is logi- database that captures information annually from
cal to have a comparison group of non-athletes who every federally funded college and university in the
represent the same type of student. Today, however, United States, many policy makers and educational
the GRS survey no longer collects data on scholar- researchers view it as the best source of data on
ship athletes and it is increasingly being used as a postsecondary education institutions. However, as
measure of institutional quality. In order for gradua- this overview reveals, several aspects of IPEDS GRS
tion rates to be an effective measure of institutional data make it imperfect for informing policy decisions
quality, they should account for all students who related to national graduation rates and institutional
enroll in a college or university and are seeking a effectiveness.
degree or certificate. IPEDS GRS was created to provide data on
Despite its statutory origin, it is important to note graduation rates for student athletes compared with
that the GRS (as well as all IPEDS surveys) are not a similar group of non-scholarship students; in other
19
Technical Review Panels (TRPs) are conducted to solicit peer review and feedback on NCES projects. TRPs are made up of about 40 nationally
recognized higher education experts, NCES staff, and staff from other federal agencies.
C o llege G raduatio n Rates: B EHIND t he numbers 9 Am e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o nwords, the first-time, full-time population. However,
according to 2008 IPEDS data, the GRS cohort National Student
at baccalaureate institutions accounted for
61 percent of the fall entering class.20 This means
Clearinghouse
that nearly 40 percent of students entering in the The National Student Clearinghouse, commonly
fall at baccalaureate institutions are not included in referred to as the Clearinghouse, is a non-federal,
IPEDS GRS. Because this number does not account independent, nonprofit organization serving the
for students who enrolled in a semester other than higher education community by housing a central
the fall, students in the GRS cohort actually account repository of student data on enrollment and degree
for significantly less than 61 percent of the total attainment. Since its inception, the Clearinghouse
entering class of 2008. Similarly, at associate-degree has served as the reporting agent between partici-
schools, the 2008 GRS cohort accounted for only pating institutions and student loan industry partici-
33 percent of their fall enrollment, but this excludes pants, such as lenders, guaranty agencies, and the
students who did not enter in the fall semester, Department of Education. The Clearinghouse pro-
which is a significant number at community colleges. vides data on student enrollment on behalf of the
Overall, of the 22.5 million students who enrolled in member institution to the student aid agencies in
postsecondary education in 2008, at least 48 percent order to help determine the student’s deferment or
were not accounted for in IPEDS GRS. repayment status.
The share of students who fall outside the The Clearinghouse’s role as the reporting agent
current GRS cohort is likely to increase. According is helpful to colleges and universities that would
to BPS data, in fall 1989, 23.9 percent of students otherwise have to communicate on a case-by-case
entering postsecondary education began as part-time basis with the hundreds
students (41.9 percent at community colleges). In of lenders and banks Since its inception, the
2003, the share of first-year students who were part that students have used Clearinghouse has served as
time was 27.3 percent (49.3 percent at community to receive their student the reporting agent between
loans. In recent years,
colleges). Similarly, the number of student transfers participating institutions
that are not tracked in IPEDS has increased (i.e., the Clearinghouse has
and student loan industry
baccalaureate to baccalaureate, associate to associate, expanded its higher
education services. participants.
and baccalaureate to associate). BPS data reveal that
among students who entered college in fall 1995, Along the same lines,
10.5 percent had engaged in at least one of these the Clearinghouse provides degree verification
types of transfers within their first three years of to employers and background-search firms, and
school.21 In fall 2003, 12.1 percent had engaged in enrollment verification to health insurers and others
such a transfer by their third year of school.22 that provide services based on enrollment status.
If IPEDS GRS was used to establish a national The Clearinghouse also serves as a liaison among
graduation rate benchmark, at least 48 percent of the secondary schools and districts and postsecondary
students who entered postsecondary education in education institutions so that school districts can see
2008 would not be included in the cohort. With such where their graduates are attending college and keep
a large share of students unaccounted for, IPEDS has track of the students’ attendance patterns. Member
limited utility for measuring institutional effectiveness institutions can see if college students who have
of graduating students. dropped out have enrolled elsewhere in the country.
20
U.S Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2008 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
21
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Beginning Postsecondary Students Study, 1996 (analysis by author).
22
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Beginning Postsecondary Students Study, 2003 (analysis by author).
C o llege G raduatio n Rates: B EHIND t he numbers 10 Am e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o nThe higher education community values the Advantages
Clearinghouse’s services and the administrative
burden that they remove from the institutions’ Accurate “real-time” data. The Clearinghouse pres-
shoulders. This is evidenced by the current ents some unique advantages in calculating gradua-
membership numbering over 3,300 colleges. The tion rate, the biggest of which is the updated nature
member institutions represent 93 percent of all of the data. Participating institutions send electronic
students enrolled in postsecondary education. files with enrollment data to the Clearinghouse every
The Clearinghouse was founded in 1993 as 30 to 40 days. The data are in nearly real time and,
the National Student Loan Clearinghouse. It was even accounting for time to analyze the data and
established in conjunction with several educational complete a formal report, the information will be
and student financial organizations. It started as a more current than NCES’s IPEDS GRS. Because data
pilot study using 34 schools, five guarantors, and submitted to the Clearinghouse also serve a compli-
14 lenders. Within two years of its creation, the ance reporting purpose for institutions, the available
Clearinghouse captured 25 data are highly accurate.
percent of all postsecondary
The Clearinghouse presents
enrollment and 60 percent Accounts for a majority of students. Schools partici-
some unique advantages in of student borrowers. pating in the Clearinghouse account for 93 percent
calculating graduation rate. In 1999, the National of students enrolled in postsecondary education.
Student Clearinghouse Although it is unclear exactly how many of these stu-
dropped “Loan” from its name to reflect its new dents are included in the Clearinghouse data, it is
array of services. Around this time, the Department widely believed the graduation rates calculated from
of Education’s Direct Loan Program became a this population include a majority of enrolled stu-
Clearinghouse member, expanding the percentage of dents: part time, full time, transfers, and stop outs.
student borrowers covered by its services. As of 2009, For institutions sharing detailed degree information,
the schools that participated in the Clearinghouse the Clearinghouse could provide graduation rates for
accounted for 93 percent of students enrolled in students seeking graduate degrees who are generally
postsecondary students and the Clearinghouse had not part of the graduation rate conversation. These
more than 100 million records in its database. rates could be disaggregated by degree type or field
of study in order to understand how long it takes
graduate students in a particular program to finish
Calculating a Graduation Rate with Clearinghouse Data their degree.
Because Clearinghouse participation transcends
normal geographic boundaries and institutional spon- Flexibility in calculating the graduation rate. Because
sorship designations, Clearinghouse data can be the Clearinghouse is not limited to the Student Right-
used to calculate a graduation rate in several ways. to-Know graduation rate methodology, there can be
The data can follow all nationwide enrollments in a flexibility in how it calculates graduation rates. For
particular starting year and see how many students example, the Clearinghouse has the tools to calcu-
graduated. With StudentTracker, students can easily late individual graduation rates for different cohorts
be tracked as they move among higher education of students. These results could be aggregated to
institutions. Using enrollment and degree data, the establish a graduation rate for different sectors of
Clearinghouse also can work backward to cluster stu- higher education such as community colleges or bac-
dents who attended the same institution, and calcu- calaureate institutions that would include transfers.
late an institutional graduation rate much like IPEDS. By not limiting the population of students to those
Unlike IPEDS, the Clearinghouse can calculate a who study full time, it would be possible to estab-
graduation rate for part-time and transfer students, lish graduation rates for those who enroll part time.
not just first-time, full-time students. Additionally, the Clearinghouse can accommodate
C o llege G raduatio n Rates: B EHIND t he numbers 11 Am e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o ninstitutions establishing their own evaluation periods Limited demographic data. Although the colleges and
for graduation rates. Institutions can calculate grad- universities that participate in the Clearinghouse do
uation rates at the standard 150 percent of time, or report demographic data on students (e.g., race/eth-
200 percent of time, but have the freedom to go out nicity, gender, class standing, current major, and so
as far as necessary to create an encompassing picture forth), the amount of information is limited. (Similar
of graduates. With the large amount of data that the to IPEDS, no income data is collected.) Additionally,
Clearinghouse stores and can access, it has a unique much of the reporting of the demographic data to
opportunity to expand the methods for calculating a the Clearinghouse started only within the past three
graduation rate that potentially can be the most accu- years, and not all institutions report this data.
rate and most useful indicator of how specific groups
of postsecondary students and institutions are faring. Incomplete certificate information. Although the
Clearinghouse can report data on certificate comple-
tion from its participating institutions, not all schools
Disadvantages report this information. Therefore, a comprehensive
picture of certificate completers is not possible. The
Data are not publically reported. One significant Clearinghouse is exploring the possibility of increas-
drawback to the Clearinghouse data ing the number of institutions that
is that they are not available to the
If a Clearinghouse-calculated report data on certificate earners.
public. The private organization is
graduation rate were to
not required to make its database
available to the public, including to be used for policy-making Implications for Policy Makers
higher education stakeholders and purposes, not all schools Among the databases that can gen-
policy makers. The Clearinghouse would be represented. erate national postsecondary gradu-
maintains a policy that it can release ation rates, the Clearinghouse is the
information to the public in an most flexible. The Clearinghouse
aggregate format as long as the information does not is able to calculate a graduation rate for an enter-
identify a specific student, institution, or institutional ing cohort of students (similar to BPS) as well as an
system. institutional graduation rate (like IPEDS). In other
words, the Clearinghouse data can inform policy
Participation is voluntary. Because participation in makers of how the higher education system is doing
the Clearinghouse is not federally mandated, insti- in graduating students in general, as well how indi-
tutions can choose whether to participate. If a vidual institutions fare in graduating students.
Clearinghouse-calculated graduation rate were to Additionally, because the Clearinghouse tracks stu-
be used for policy-making purposes, not all schools dents until they complete their degree program, it is
would be represented. Additionally, schools must able to provide data on how many students are still
subscribe to more than one service in order to cal- enrolled beyond six or eight years. This is impor-
culate a graduation rate. Being a participant of the tant information because it distinguishes students
Clearinghouse’s enrollment verification service but who have dropped out or stopped out from those
not its degree completion verification service does who have not completed but are still pursuing their
not provide enough data to calculate a graduation degree, information that is not available in IPEDS.
rate. Currently, most participating institutions sub- One additional advantage for policy makers is
scribe to both services so that a graduation rate can the timeliness of the data. Although IPEDS data
be calculated, but there is no guarantee that a sub- tend to lag behind the current year (for example, in
scription to both services will remain intact over summer 2010, the earliest six-year graduation rate
time, which could impact year-to-year graduation data available in IPEDS were for students graduating
rates. in 2008), Clearinghouse data are “real time.” That
C o llege G raduatio n Rates: B EHIND t he numbers 12 Am e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o nis, data on students graduating in 2010 would be state databases may play in the national gradua-
available in 2010. tion rate conversation. The increased call for more
Although the flexibility and timeliness of the accountability of postsecondary education institutions
Clearinghouse data make them a valuable tool for has spawned talk of a federal student record system
policy makers, two major issues supersede that that would track individual students’ educational
policy value. First, and most importantly, colleges performance throughout their academic careers.
and universities are not required to participate. This idea gained prominence in 2006 when it was
According to IPEDS in 2008. there were 6,898 endorsed by the Secretary of Education’s Commission
postsecondary education institutions that received on the Future of Higher Education. Supporters of
federal aid. Although the institutions that participate a so-called national unit record system believe it is
in the Clearinghouse account for 93 percent of the only way to obtain accurate graduation rate data
all enrolled students, graduation rates can be because it would track students regardless of when
calculated only for the approximately 2,642 (or they start their postsecondary education or where
38 percent of colleges and universities) that submit they finish. Critics argue that the reporting require-
degree completion information. This means that ments would violate student privacy, and that states
62 percent of postsecondary education institutions already collect sufficient information from colleges
that receive federal funding are not accounted for and universities to cal-
in Clearinghouse data. The majority of these are culate graduation rates The increased call for more
less-than-two-year, non–degree-granting institutions and other educational accountability of postsecondary
with small enrollments. For federal policy makers outcomes. education institutions has
interested in institution-level graduation rates, In the 2008 Higher
spawned talk of a federal
however, the lack of participation by so many Education Opportunity
student record system.
federally funded institutions would be cause for Act (HEOA), Congress
concern. This is particularly true for non-degree, included a provision that
certificate-granting institutions, which currently are prohibited the development of a federal student
a major focus of Congress and the Department of unit record system, thus eliminating the possibility
Education. of such a database without a change in the law.
Second, although the Clearinghouse does receive However, the HEOA specifically states that there was
data on certificates awarded, it does not receive no federal prohibition on “a state or consortium of
this information from all institutions. Due in part to states from developing, implementing, or maintaining
President Obama’s desire to increase U.S. educational state-developed databases that track students over
attainment and have every American complete time, including student unit record systems.”
at least one year of college, sub-baccalaureate Because of the reporting requirements for the
programs, specifically certificate programs, have primary federal elementary-secondary education
become a point of focus for both state and federal legislation, No Child Left Behind, most states have at
policy makers. Although the Clearinghouse is least begun the process of developing state databases
exploring the possibility of capturing certificate to track individual students’ progress through state
completion data from all schools, it currently cannot K–12 education systems. In an effort to encourage
provide a comprehensive calculation of certificate states to continue developing these databases (and
completion. possibly link them to create a national nonfederal
database), the Obama administration has established
State Data Systems financial incentives for states to develop robust
unit record systems that include postsecondary
Although the focus of this report is on databases education. The best-known example is Race to
that provide national-level graduation rate data, it the Top, a $4.3 billion competitive grant initiative
is important to acknowledge the potential role that designed to spur systemic reform and innovative
C o llege G raduatio n Rates: B EHIND t he numbers 13 Am e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o napproaches to teaching and learning in America’s Advantages
schools. One of the criteria for qualifying for funding
is “fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data Accurate state-level graduation rates. Because state-
system.” In addition to Race to the Top, the federal level data are collected at the student level (like the
government has provided $506 million since 2005 to NCES sample surveys and the Clearinghouse), more
the Statewide Longitudinal Data System program at comprehensive graduation rates can be calculated.
the Institute for Education Sciences to promote the Additionally, because an increasing number of state
development of state data systems. databases are following students’ activities beyond
In addition to the encouragement from the graduation, state databases are not limited to a five-
Obama administration, several foundations and non- or six-year graduation rate and can calculate gradu-
profit organizations are assisting states to develop ation rates based on what makes the most sense for
comprehensive unit record systems. A 2010 report their states.
by the State Higher Education Executive Officers
(SHEEO)23 took inventory of how many states have Context for students. In addition to being able to cal-
student record databases, how many of them link culate accurate graduation rates at the student and
with other data, and how the data are used. The institutional levels (at least for public institutions),
report found that 45 states have state data systems can provide impor-
unit record systems that cover post tant contextual information on stu-
secondary education institutions.
Several foundations and
dents to better understand graduation
A 2007 report funded by Lumina nonprofit organizations are rates. For example, among the data
Foundation found that state data- assisting states to develop elements the DQC considers essen-
bases account for 81 percent of the comprehensive unit record tial to developing a comprehensive
total enrollment in U.S. colleges and systems. longitudinal data system are eco-
universities. Among these states, the nomic status; and transcript data that
databases are commonly used to cal- includes items such as rigor of K–12
culate postsecondary graduation rates. curricula, standardized test data, and teacher prepa-
Also of note is the Common Data Standards (CDS) ration data. These data will provide a better sense
Initiative, funded jointly by the U.S. Department of the many pre-collegiate factors that can affect
of Education (which is funding the development whether a student will complete his or her degree.
of the standards) and the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation (which is funding the communica-
tion and adoption of the standards, along with Disadvantages
SHEEO and the Council of Chief State School
Superintendents). The purpose of the CDS is to Limited coverage of private nonprofit and for-profit
develop a model of data standards for K–12 and institutions. While state data systems can provide a
postsecondary education. One of the more spe- wealth of information on public institutions, they
cific CDS goals is to identify a list of key K–12-to- typically have very little information on private insti-
postsecondary variables (including graduation rates) tutions. An increasing number of private institutions
and “agree upon standard definitions, code sets, are moving toward participating in state databases;
business rules, and technical specifications for those however, they may not participate in all aspects of
variables to increase data interoperability, portability, the database. For example, enrollment data may
and comparability across states, districts, and higher include only state residents who receive state finan-
education organizations.” cial aid. Although this is less of an issue for states
23
Garcia, T., L’Orange, H., (2010). Strong foundations: The state of postsecondary data systems. Boulder, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers.
C o llege G raduatio n Rates: B EHIND t he numbers 14 Am e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o nYou can also read
