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

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

Changes to IPEDS likely: 1.Possible expansion of/changes to IPEDS data elements 2.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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

“BIG IPEDS” ONLY IF AUTHORIZED ONLY IF APPROPRIATED

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

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

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

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?

College Affordability Index Currently on IPEDS PAS

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.

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.

If CAI > 2.0

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

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

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

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

Resources for IR’s IPEDS home page: IPEDS Web-based Collection Page:

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

Other Resources AIR Alerts ( 58) 58 “Accountability for Better Results: A National Imperative for Higher Education,” Report of the National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education, March 2005, SHEEO ( ability.pdf) ability.pdf

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

Our Questions for You 1.Which IPEDS item is most problematic for you? Why? –Difficult or time-consuming to compute it –Uncertain how to compute it 2.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?

3.If there were one measure you could add to IPEDS, what would it be? 4.Are there items that you think institutions may compute using non-consistent methodologies? Any items others may “cheat” on?

5.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

6.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

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