IPEDS: Alternatives to Unit Records

1. IPEDS:Alternatives to Unit Records SAIR 2005 October 25, 2005 Charleston, SC

2. Impetus for This Session: IR Needs to Monitor Use of IPEDS Data & IR Needs to Mitigate Misinterpretation of Data

3. Possible expansion of/changes to IPEDS data elements Possible changes in how IPEDS data are used Institutional researchers tend to focus on #1, but should consider #2 as well, because new indicators and derived variables will be created to respond to HEA Changes to IPEDS likely:

4. Misinterpretation of Data • Institutional policies & procedures affect how we collect, store, & report IPEDS data • Idiosyncratic procedures affect data; not a problem for low-stakes data • High-stakes performance indicators based on idiosyncratic data could make institution an outlier, causing erroneous accountability results & decisions

5. What to do…what to do... • NCES can’t know about our idiosyncrasies, burden, or comparability issues unless we tell them • NCES wants to hear about potential issues (will have time for discussion)

6. FTE—Example of Impact of Idiosyncrasy • Problem: Some institutions that don’t use credit hours reported # of courses instead • Result: FTE (based on full-year CHs) was around 1/3 of what it should have been • Impact: cost per FTE student & other ratios per FTE were not comparable • Option for manually entering FTE now available

7. Pressures to Change IPEDS • Congressional desire for • Accountability (monitoring efficient use of federal aid dollars) • Affordability (reducing growth rate of college price) • Work-force development • Providing consumers with more transparent information

8. Proposals in HEA Reauthorization • Senate version • House version Both require more accountability and changes to IPEDS COOL…

9. And Finally… • Support from HE groups (ACE, SHEEOs) for more data on HE • Consistent with consumer concerns about rising tuition

10. NCES Response so far: • Some expansion of IPEDS (SATs, admission counts) • Changes and expansion of College Opportunities On-Line (COOL) – more data • Feasibility study for student unit-record (UR) database • Prepared to establish TRP to respond to upcoming HEA requirements

11. UR Proposal • Submit student unit-record records (with SSN) instead of current IPEDS surveys • 40 variables (enrollment, completions, FA), edit checks • Mandatory pilot (both race/ethnic categories), 5 historical GRS cohorts • NCES proposed postsecondary student ID/bar code instead of SSN • Privacy became political issue and UR initiative killed

12. “BIG IPEDS” ONLY IF AUTHORIZED ONLY IF APPROPRIATED

13. Affordability • May require new Price and Student Financial Aid component • Dependency status • Intensity (FT, ½ time, < ½ time) • Aid category (full Pell etc.) • SFA by each of the above breaks

14. Accountability • May need more detail on graduation rates and time to degree • E.g.: Separate cohorts for full- and part-time students and transfer out information • Possible 10 year tracking • May need to separate by amount of aid rec’d • Full Pell • < full Pell • Loans but no grants • No Federal grants or loans

15. Time to degree would come from Completions • Separate data for students who transferred in with credit • Average time to degree in months • Average number of credits earned • Additional data on those transferring in

16. Workforce Development • May need more information on full year enrollment by field of study • By 6-digit CIP • New counts of full-year unduplicated counts of co-enrolled students • Noncredit enrollment? • Intensity?

17. College Affordability Index Currently on IPEDS PAS

18. CALCULATION - The CAI shall be equal to-- (A) the percentage increase in the tuition and fees charged for a first-time, full-time, full-year undergraduate student between the first of the 3 most recent preceding academic years and the last of those 3 academic years; divided by `(B) the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index--All Urban Consumers (Current Series) from July of the first of those 3 academic years to July of the last of those 3 academic years.

19. Exemptions • Relative Price Exemption • Once ranked on dollar amount of tuition and fees, by institution type, the institution falls into the least costly quartile; OR • Has a CAI > 2.0 but their AVERAGE tuition and fees for the 3-year interval is less than the maximum average amount for the least costly quartile. • Dollar Increase Exemption • The institution has a CAI that exceeds 2.0 for the 3-year interval, but that exceeds such 2.0 by a dollar amount that is less than $500.

20. If CAI > 2.0

21. Institutions must • Submit a report to the Secretary • Explanation • Management plan • Action plan • Report made available to public • More actions taken if CAI>2.0 in the next 2 years

22. If in most costly quartile • Institutions must establish a quality-efficiency task force • Task force will submit analysis report to the Secretary

23. Advice for Institutional Researchers • Monitor proposed changes to IPEDS, especially high-stakes performance indicators • Assess implications of your methodologies for derived variables • Alert institution if you might look “bad” on new high-stakes performance indicators

24. Be aware of political implications as well as increased burden • When NCES asks for feedback on proposed changes, provide it • If you don’t understand instructions or your institution does things differently, ASK the Help Desk • Join in the Q&A discussion

25. Resources for IR’s • IPEDS home page: http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/ • IPEDS Web-based Collection Page: http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/webbase.asp

26. Connects you to: • Forms, instructions, etc • Glossary • Data Analysis Tools • Peer Analysis System and DCT • ExPT • This Week in IPEDS • What’s New in IPEDS • IPEDS COOL

27. Other Resources • AIR Alerts(http://www.airweb.org/page.asp?page=58) • “Accountability for Better Results: A National Imperative for Higher Education,” Report of the National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education, March 2005, SHEEO (http://www.sheeo.org/account/accountability.pdf)

28. Presenters: • Mary Sapp – University of Miami • Janice Plotczyk – NCES • Susan Broyles – NCES

29. Our Questions for You • Which IPEDS item is most problematic for you? Why? • Difficult or time-consuming to compute it • Uncertain how to compute it • If there were one thing you could change about IPEDS, what would it be? In particular, what could NCES do to improve quality of data and/or reduce burden?

30. If there were one measure you could add to IPEDS, what would it be? • Are there items that you think institutions may compute using non-consistent methodologies? Any items others may “cheat” on?

31. What potential problems might occur with proposed derived variables due to institutional idiosyncrasies? What can NCES do to reduce the impact? • FTE • College Affordability Index • Net price

32. What problems might institutions experience if IPEDS reporting expands? What can NCES do to reduce the impact? Possibilities (per Mary’s rumor mill): • GRS for up to 10 years, by FT/PT, by income (per Pell) • Enrollment by 6-digit CIP code & low income (per Pell) • More detail on full-year enrollment • Cumulative debt • Total assistance for students by state • Outcomes by independent versus dependent status • First-generation (per parents’ education) • Transfer credit acceptance • “Non-traditional” students • % of graduates employed • % of graduates in graduate school

33. Are there issues related to reporting to state systems or other reporting that should be considered?