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