1. NCHEMS Lumina Project on Inter-State Student Mobility Peter Ewell SHEEO/NCES Network Conference March 31, 2004

2. Origins and Background: Lumina Interest No Comprehensive Source of National Data on Retention and Program Completion Beyond Institutional Unit of Analysis Federal Studies Indicate that Over 55% of Students Attend Multiple Institutions in the Course of Earning a Baccalaureate Degree More than 30% of “Multiple Attenders” Cross State Lines State Unit-Record Databases a Potential Way to Generate Better Information About Retention and Program Completion

3. Resulting State Unit-Record Database Inventory: “Following the Mobile Student” Looked at 46 Databases in 39 States Contents Cover 73% of Nation’s Headcount Enrollment Growing Number of Independent Colleges Participate Data Structures and Definitions Compatible for Core Data Elements

4. Key Data Elements in Common Demographic (Gender, Ethnicity, DOB, Geographic Origin) Academic Activity Levels (Full-time/Part-time, SCH Enrolled, etc.) Program of Study Degree/Program Completion by Field

5. Other Data Elements (Less in Common) High School Records “End of Term” Data (e.g. Credits Completed, Grades) Prior College and Transfer Credit Transcript-Level Detail

6. Some Specific Features Across States Multiple Databases in Some States Growing Experience with Linking Data to Other State Databases (K-12, UI-Wage, DMV, etc.), but Little Experience in Linking with Other States Virtually all use SSN as Key Link Despite Compatible Data Contents, Differing Designs and Reporting Cycles Many Systems Getting Old and Hard to Maintain

7. Challenges in Using Linked SURs Privacy Issues (FERPA and Other Regulations—Including IRBs) The Thorny Problem of Student Identifiers (SSN, Encryption, Directory Matching) Technical Issues and Considerations (Size, Database Environment, Cost, Personnel Availability and Training)

8. Resulting Recommendations Considerable Potential for Linking SURs to Yield Additional Information About Student Progress Supplement not Supplant Other Efforts Develop Common Definitions and Reporting Standards Develop New Approach to Student Identifiers Begin Efforts with Voluntary State Consortia

9. Current NCHEMS/Lumina Feasibility Study on Exchanging Data Among States Goal: Examine Utility to State and Institutions of Linking Student Record Information Across State Lines Convene Expert Panels on Policy and Technical Issues Limited Demonstrations in Several States Interested in Participating Develop Protocols and Documentation to Assist in Future Data Exchange Efforts

11. Key Elements of the Concept Multiple SURs Maintained Independently Secure Data-Matching Environment Set of Core Data Elements with Common Definitions and Data Structures Standard Input Protocol Output Report (or File) Containing Matched Data

12. Other Recommended Features Modular Design (e.g. Basic and Enhanced Sets of Data Elements) Matching Capabilities to Link with Multiple “External” Records (e.g. High School, UI, etc.) Web-Enabled Data Exchange, Where Possible Outsource to Limited Number of Service Providers Common Guidelines to Address Security and Privacy Issues (“Toolkit”)

13. Advice from Policy Leaders Principal Applications Should Address the “Educational Pipeline” and Workforce Development, not Student Progression per se Other Key Questions Include Return on Investment for State Financial Aid, Effects of Tuition Policy, and Program Competitiveness Adopt a Decentralized “Need-Based” Approach, not a “National Database” Involve Institutions from the Outset for “Buy-In”

14. Addressing the Privacy Issue The Problem Is Less FERPA than “the Perception of FERPA” Resulting Situation: Ambiguity Means the Easiest Answer is “No” Getting Beyond this Requires Following Protocols of “Best Practice” States (e.g. FL, TX, MO, OK) Will Also Seek Clear Common Rulings and Interpretations from USDOE, Labor, etc.

15. Objectives of Cross-State Demonstrations Assess “Added Informational Value” Gained through Exchange Uncover any Additional Definitional/Data Structure Issues Demonstrate Compatibility with FERPA, etc. Develop “Best Practice” Approaches to Reporting

16. Key Features of the Proposed Exchange Between Kentucky and Ohio Matches Will Take Place Within Secure Web- Enabled Database at Ohio Board of Regents Outputs Will be Information About Student Attendance/Completion at Institutions in Other State by Program Will Experiment with Different Types of Student Identifiers and Directory Matching Data Destroyed After No Longer Needed

17. Data Elements Involved Institutional and Student Identifiers Number of Credits Enrolled For [or Full- Time/Part-Time Status] Current Program of Study (CIP) Degree Earned (Annual Extract) Degree Field (CIP)

18. Expected Benefits Enhanced Information on Transfer for Institutions for GRS-Type Reporting and Analysis State Policy Information on Out-of-State Transfer Activity by Program Greater Detail than Provided by National Clearinghouse Data (and Less Costly)

19. Future Directions Develop Additional Multi-State Experiments and Continue to Develop Model Protocols and Documentation Seek Limited Number of Service Providers to Support Matching for Multiple States Seek Ways to Address Deteriorating SUR Infrastructure in Many States A Possible Vision: Permanent Resource Center for State Policy on Student Progression