Statewide Unit Record Databases in Higher Education: Growth and Application

Peter Ewell National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) PESC Annual Meeting April 29, 2008

State-Level “Unit Record” Databases in Higher Education

 Established and Maintained by Public University System and SHEEO Offices  Several Decades of Experience at this Point  Originally Designed to Drive State Funding Formulas for Public University Systems  Used More Recently to Calculate Student Retention and Graduation Rates for Accountability Purposes (“Student Right to Know”), and to Track Students from One Institution to Another (“Enrollment Swirl”)  Federal Unit Record Proposal for Postsecondary Education

State Unit-Record Database Inventory

 Updated a Previous Inventory Conducted in 2003  Looked at 49 Databases in 42 States  Contents Cover 81% of Nation’s Headcount Enrollment  Growing Number of Independent Colleges are Included  Reasonably Compatible Data Structures and Definitions for Core Data Elements (Largely Based on IPEDS and the “Common Core of Data”)

Some Common Features Across States

 Multiple Databases in Some States  Growing Experience with Linking Data to Other State Databases (K-12, UI-Wage, DMV, etc.), but this is Still a “Frontier” to be Explored  Virtually All Still Use SSN in Some Form as Key Link  FERPA and Privacy Issues are Major and Growing Concerns  Many Systems Getting Old and Hard to Maintain, and State Money to Do This is in Short Supply

Some Specific Features

 23 SURs Contain Transcript-Level Detail  17 SURs Have Data on Placement Test Scores and Participation in Developmental Education  25 SURs Have Contain Financial Aid Records  23 SURs Now Have Mode of Delivery Indicators (e.g. Distance Delivery, etc.)

Commonly-Reported Challenges

 Data Quality and Data Audit Functions  Lack of Analytical Capacity and Analytical Staff  Non-Credit Activities  Non-Traditional Calendars and Teaching/Learning Environments  Political and Organizational Issues

Typical Reports Generated Through SURs

 Basic IPEDS Reporting  Multi-Institutional Retention and Graduation Reports (In-State Only)  Reports on the Effectiveness of Developmental Education  High School Feedback Reports  Reports on Workforce Placement, Earnings, and Return on Investment

SUR System Components Needed for Effective Longitudinal Tracking

 Broad Coverage of the State’s Postsecondary Institutions (2-Year, 4-Year Public, Independent)  Agreed Upon “Key Links” for Merging Term Records to Create Longitudinal Data Files (and the People to Do This)  The Data Elements Needed to Construct Key Performance and Outcome Measures  Paths to Link Longitudinal Data with External Databases (e.g. High School, Employment)

Data Element Contents Needed for Effective Longitudinal Tracking

 Basic Enrollment and Completion Data (Credits Attempted and Earned, GPA, Program Enrollment, Developmental Enrollment, Degrees Awarded)  Requires Census Date and End of Term Extracts  Demographic Data of Interest for Disaggregation (Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Age, Location [Income])  Transcript-Level (Class Level) Data is the “Gold Standard” for Effective Tracking

Some State Examples of Using SUR Data

 Florida K-20 Data Warehouse and Associated FLCCS Studies on High School and College Performance  Washington SBCTC Studies on Pathways to Success for Low Skilled Adult Students  Validating Placement Testing Policies for North Carolina Community Colleges  Data Sharing Among High Schools, Community Colleges, and Four-Year Colleges (CalPASS)

Some Lessons from Experience

 Data Systems Can Acquire a “Logic of their Own”  Data Use Drives Data Quality  Just “Having Good Data” Doesn’t Guarantee Good Policy  Secondary and Postsecondary SUR Development Still on Parallel Independent Tracks