Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 1 SHEEO Policy Conference August 9, Sandy Baum, David Wright, Lee Holcombe, Kim Hunter-Reed.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 1 SHEEO Policy Conference August 9, Sandy Baum, David Wright, Lee Holcombe, Kim Hunter-Reed."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 1 SHEEO Policy Conference August 9, Sandy Baum, David Wright, Lee Holcombe, Kim Hunter-Reed

2 2 Project background  Started in 2011 by HCM Strategists, with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation  Brought together researchers with different perspectives on higher education measurement  Asked research participants to think like policymakers and leaders  Asked policymakers and leaders to consider and respond to research

3 3 Key questions How should we account for different student populations when evaluating higher education outcomes?  What methods are available or in use for policymakers and leaders to account for variations in inputs?  What are the best ways to do it and what are the practical limitations?  Can research findings be translated into policy?

4 4 Project components  Seven white papers  Synopsis paper  Literature review Coming soon...  Policy briefs  Toolkit for states  Outreach--sharing findings, including more voices, continuing to solicit input 4

5 5 Some general lessons and conclusions  Input adjustments make a big difference  Policymakers should make an effort to adjust for inputs when institutional comparisons have stakes attached  Imperfect input adjustments are better than none  Need to be clear about outcomes

6 6 Readers will find specific guidance on  Important variables to include  Examples of adjustment models and statistical techniques  Use of survey for input adjustments  College learning assessments  Strategies for working with messy administrative data  Strengths and weaknesses of U.S. News input adjustments  Many potential unintended consequences

7 7 Where to find out more... Context for Success website: Questions? Comments?

8 8 Advice for Moving Forward Know the purpose, audience and questions to be answered  Consumers: Judging quality and value  Institutions: Improving  Accountability: Success and cost-effectiveness

9 9 Advice for Moving Forward Comparing outcomes: Focus on similar institutions  Differences in credentials  Goals of students  Role of transfer Selecting variables  Preparation  Demographics  Attitudes, goals, behaviors

10 10 Context for Success White Papers Charles Clotfelter. "'Context for Success' Synopsis Paper." Thomas Bailey and Di Xu. "Literature Review: Input Adjusted Graduation Rates and College Accountability." Peter Riley Bahr. "Classifying Community Colleges Based on Students' Patterns of Usage." Thomas Bailey. "Developing Input Adjusted Measures of Community College Performance." Jesse M. Cunha and Darwin W. Miller. "Measuring Value-Added in Higher Education."

11 11 Context for Success White Papers (cont.) Robert Kelchen and Douglas N. Harris. "Can 'Value Added' Methods Improve the Measurement of College Performance?" Stephen M. Porter. "Using Student Learning as a Measure of Quality in Higher Education." John Pryor and Sylvia Hurtado. "Using CIRP Student Level Data to Study Input Adjusted Degree Attainment." David Wright, Matthew Murray, Bill Fox, Celeste Carruthers, Grant Thrall. "College Participation, Persistence, Graduation, and Labor Market Outcomes."

12 An Input-Adjusted Framework for Assessing the Effectiveness of Tennessee’s Higher Education Institutions Context for Success project Celeste Carruthers, a William Fox, a Matthew Murray, a Grant Thrall, b David L Wright c a University of Tennessee, Knoxville; b University of Florida; c Tennessee Higher Education Commission

13 Background Policy relevance: – Complete College TN Act ties HEI funding to student outcomes. Assumption: – Funding incentives must take into account student characteristics that are likely to be important determinants of postsecondary outcomes. SHEEO, Context for Success paper

14 Research questions Purposes: 1)We statistically test whether some TN institutions were more effective than others at advancing the outcomes of 2002 entering first- time freshmen. SHEEO, Context for Success paper

15 Research questions Purposes: 2)We go on to test whether accounting for student inputs (ACT aptitude, age, low-income home neighborhood, LifeMode marketing profile) changes the ranking of institutions. —Is model fit improved by supplementing or substituting our standard stock of administrative data with proprietary data on consumer tapestry profiles (called LifeModes) or with Census information? SHEEO, Context for Success paper

16 Method Cohort: 2002 first-time freshmen in TN public universities and community colleges Design: – Multivariate OLS regression – Used fixed effects to isolate institutional effectiveness SHEEO, Context for Success paper

17 Method Compared models with four different sets of predictor variables: 1)naïve model 2)standard state agency administrative data 3)Census neighborhood data 4)proprietary LifeModes profiles Outcomes considered: student progression, transfer, graduation, and near-term labor market success SHEEO, Context for Success paper

18 Selected findings Timely completion: – Females, higher entrance exam scores, and adult status were associated with more timely degree completion. – Low-income status delayed completion. – Additional semesters in college reduced earnings later on. SHEEO, Context for Success paper

19 Selected findings Earnings: – Females and higher entrance exam score were associated with higher earnings in the years immediately following college. – A significant black-white earnings gap favored white students. SHEEO, Context for Success paper

20 Six-year graduation rates (bachelor’s) across 4-year schools, relative to one omitted institution, unadjusted (blue) or adjusted for student and home characteristics 4-Year Institution SHEEO, Context for Success paper

21 Four-year graduation rates (associate’s) across 2-year schools, relative to one omitted institution, unadjusted (blue) or adjusted for student and home characteristics 2-Year Institution SHEEO, Context for Success paper

22 Observations and open questions Institutions do matter: even after controlling for all observed student inputs, some institutions are significantly more effective than others. – Also see Cunha and Miller in this series. Student inputs also matter: institutions’ apparent effectiveness changes when we account for student aptitude and background. The gains from more data are not always high. SHEEO, Context for Success paper

23 Why are some institutions more effective than others? Institutional effects are a black box. Student goals and objectives may not align with traditionally tracked student outcomes. – Especially in community colleges! Assessing and comparing student growth across fields and campuses is challenging but not insurmountable. SHEEO, Context for Success paper Observations and open questions

24 Outcomes and institutional best practices should be included in performance-based funding. (p.6) Incentivizing colleges for student progression and completion relative to expectations is an improvement over unadjusted rewards… … but, be aware that outcomes will vary according to which students inputs are factored into expectations for colleges and universities. (p.32) SHEEO, Context for Success paper Conclusions

25 A Project of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Input Adjusted Output Measures Presented By: Lee Holcombe, Director, Higher Education Policy Institute Analysis: Jesse Cunha, of the Naval Postgraduate School and Trey Miller of the RAND Corporation

26 26 Goals  Develop and implement a methodology that generates quantitative metrics of institutional performance.  Come as close as possible to causal estimates of an institution’s impact on a particular outcome.  Demonstrate benefits of collecting additional data.  Develop a set of concrete and actionable policy recommendations for practitioners and policymakers. Higher Education Policy Institute

27 27 Outcomes  Persistence into 2nd year of college:  Attain 30 credit hours at any public or private four-year college in Texas by the end of the 6th academic year after graduating high school  Graduation:  Receive a Bachelor’s degree at any public or private four-year college in Texas by the end of the 6th academic year after graduating high school  Earnings:  Sum of 4 quarterly earnings in the 8th calendar year after high school graduation. Higher Education Policy Institute

28 28 Data  Higher education  Demographic variables, application and acceptance data, credits attempted, degree completion  K12 (Secondary)  Demographic variables, test scores, courses taken  Unemployment Insurance earnings  From College Board:  SAT scores and survey info Higher Education Policy Institute

29 29 Sample  Graduates of Texas public high schools in 5 cohorts ( )  Include those Texas public high school graduates who ever enrolled in a Texas public university (up to 2010).  217,723 enrollees, 169,239 of whom had earnings greater than $2,000 Higher Education Policy Institute

30 30 Findings  Large differences in unconditional outcomes across colleges diminish as each set of controls is added to the model.  Adding high school indicators and courses changes results much more than adding race and gender.  Different results across outcomes.  Measures are highly variable over time. Higher Education Policy Institute

31 31 Policy Recommendations of Report  Assessment of institutional quality should involve a broad set of outcomes representing multiple dimensions of institutional performance.  Researchers should work with state policymakers to develop models that reflect state priorities.  Do not assume that results are causal.  Create broad classifications of institutional performance as opposed to explicit rankings. Higher Education Policy Institute

32 32 Policy Response  Elusive quest for causality.  Excludes many non-traditional students.  Consider improvements within-institution  Dig inside the higher education black box.  Provide higher levels of information and support.  Use of more nimble data systems.  Consider learning outcomes. Higher Education Policy Institute

33 33 Where to find out more... COMING SOON Context for Success website: Questions? Comments?


Download ppt "1 1 SHEEO Policy Conference August 9, Sandy Baum, David Wright, Lee Holcombe, Kim Hunter-Reed."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google