Hans P. L’Orange State Higher Education Executive Officers October 20, 2009

 The State Higher Education Executive Officers association created in 1954  Membership association of the chief executive officers serving 28 statewide governing boards and 29 statewide coordinating boards of higher education  Mission: help members and states develop and sustain excellent systems of higher education  Supported by member dues, NCES contract and grant activity  Staff of 11 based in Boulder, CO

Moving from a sorting and selecting system of higher education to…… ….An environment designed to increase overall capacity.

1.What does the overall “flow” of students through the pipeline look like? 2.What experiences affect student success? 3.What facilitates successful student transitions? 4.What role does geographic mobility play in credentialing and attainment?

 59 systems in 45 states have longitudinal postsecondary student unit record data systems capturing demographic, enrollment and completion information  8 states have comprehensive P-20 data warehouses  5 states without systems are relatively small  44 of the 59 systems collect course level data  27 of the systems link with K-12 and 27 link with labor/workforce

 12 established in the 1970s, 34 in the 1980s and 1990s, 12 in the last 9 years  Top three reasons for creating systems: tracking retention/graduation, tracking across different institutions, resource allocation/funding formula  Legal authorization: state law (75%)  Majority focus on 4-year publics, 19 collect from independents  8 systems plan to expand their collection from independents or to begin collecting data from independents within the next 2 years

Student Characteristics 1.A unique privacy protected id 2.Common Enrollment, Completion, and Demographic data 3.Financial Aid data 4.Transfer data 5.Persistence and Graduation data Course Characteristics 6.Remediation data & Development Education participation and success 7.Course / Transcript level data 8.Assessed Achievement

Operational Characteristics 9. Privacy protection 10. Link to K Link to Labor and Workforce Development 12. Includes Students from Independents and For-Profits 13. Single system for all Public Institutions Data Governance Characteristics 14. Data Audits: quality, validity, and reliability 15. Alignment with State Goals and Demonstrating Usability and Sustainability

 General System Abilities  Show longitudinal trends  Bridge sectors  Offer flexibility  Have meaningful, transparent data  Focus on state needs, manage expectations  Meeting More Specific Needs  Federal and state reporting  Institutional-level reports  K-12 feedback  Policy questions

 At least, a state data system should:  Protect privacy  Link to K-12 and labor  Contain metadata and have standard definitions  Be flexible enough to expand in future  As system evolves, it should:  Have data audit capacity  Be aligned with state goals  Demonstrate usability and sustainability  A fully realized state data system would:  Include students from independent and for-profit institutions  Demonstrate interoperability

 Minimum Data Elements (can be done with 30)  Basic Student Demographics  Institutional Characteristics  Student’s Academic Background  Current Enrollment status  Financial Aid status  Academic Activity  Academic Attainment

 Caveat: Still in the discussion stage so take with a BIG grain of salt  Who: Department of Ed, Gates and Dell Foundations, CCSSO & SHEEO  Goal: Identify, encourage consensus, and release minimal set of P-20 record level common data standards  3 year project with technical, communication, adoption work groups

 Data Standards: Documented agreements on representations, formats, and definitions of common data intended to improve the quality and share-ability of education data.  Common model One-size-fits-all  Collaborative (inclusive) and transparent  Key partners: SIF, PESC, DQC

Questions and Comments? Hans P. L’Orange Thank You!