Telling the Private College Story

Amen. But it’s too bad that NAICU (and ACE, to a large extent) are no longer taken seriously in think tanks and on the Hill. An example appeared in The Chronicle this week, where Hill staffers complained that when they sought help from higher education associations in drafting legislation, the results were laughable.

Private colleges have a better story to tell than their associations put forward. But rather than telling this story, they have sought doggedly to keep information about themselves opaque on the curious presumption that it is better to withhold information from students, parents, and elected representatives than it is to open up and argue from a position of strength about the burdensome collection of unnecessary data.

In the end they are going to wind up with both bad legislation and less credibility.

Friend Telling Unpleasant Truth, at 11:00 am EDT on May 22, 2008

now lets have a real policy debate

It is disappointing that Kevin Carey has chosen to launch his “Outside the Circle” column with a reprise of his mean-spirited attacks on the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) due to our opposition to the establishment of a federal student unit record data system.

We have explained our position many times over the past four years, but it bears repetition now. Put most simply, we believe that establishment of a federal student unit record data system will jeopardize student privacy and that there is no compelling public policy reason to put student privacy at risk.

A central database containing massive amounts of data for each of the 16.5 million postsecondary students in the United States–including those who do not receive any financial aid–is profoundly counter to the democratic underpinnings of higher education and American society. The existence of such a body of data will inevitable lead to pressures to share the information with other government agencies for ancillary uses and to make additions to the data for non-educational purposes. The potential reach of such a database maintained by the federal government exceeds anything that could be developed and maintained by any private entity.

In terms of the public policy case for building this system, Carey mentions a desire to see that all institutions get “credit” for any student who may have passed through their halls and ultimately received a degree. Putting aside the question of how one would figure out how to divide this credit (and presumably the demerits for students who failed to graduate at all) fairly among the various institutions involved, the fact is that all institutions would look better on their graduation rates. That is simply not a good reason to sacrifice student privacy.

His second public policy case was that student unit record data would show “net price.” It is not clear why one needs to collect individual student data to do net price calculations. Certainly, this is not an assumption that the Congress is making–given that net price calculations are anticipated for many of the provisions of the same bill that prohibits the development of a federal student unit record data system.

There are several longitudinal students conducted by the National Center for Educational Statistics that capture individual student information for research into student demographic characteristics, program persistence and completion, and post-baccalaureate education and employment. These students, based on scientifically valid samples of students, have been useful addressing policy questions and do not compromise individual student data.

One final point warrants comment, and that is Carey’s remarks about “public opinion surveys filled with leading questions”–a not-so-veiled reference to a survey commissioned by NAICU in 2006 in which over 60-percent of respondents expressed opposition to the establishment of a federal student data collection system. Leading questions?? You be the judge:

1. The federal government has proposed a system where colleges and universities would be required to report individual student’s academic, financial aid, and enrollment information. This data would be linked to individual students through a unique identifier, and potentially to information from the student’s high school and elementary records. Would you support or oppose requiring colleges and universities to report individual student information to the federal government? (Total Support 33%; Total Oppose 62%)

2. Now I would like to read you statements from supporters and opponents of this requirement. Please tell me which statement you agree with more:

Statement A: (Some/Other) people say that having more detailed information about college students would promote greater accountability for colleges and universities.

Statement B: (Some/Other) people say that enough data is already collected at the college and university level, and that reporting individual data is a breach of privacy that could result in abuses of people’s personal information.

Which statement do you agree with more? (Total Statement A — 27%; Total Statement B — 68%)

3. Now I would like to read you some additional statements from supporters and opponents of this requirement:Statement A: (Some/other) people say that collecting data on individual students makes colleges and universities more transparent, so people can see if these institutions are being well-managed.

Statement B: (Some/other) people say that collecting individual student data is just costly and intrusive and does not address or solve any pressing public policy issue. Which of these positions comes closest to your own position?(Total Statement A — 34%; Total Statement B — 60%)

sarah flanagan, VP Government Relations at NAICU, at 3:20 pm EDT on May 22, 2008

Stating the obvious

Well if the clearinghouse already has most of the information, why doesn’t the Federal Government just buy the reports it needs from the clearinghouse? It would save a fortune in tax dollars needed to set up the redundant system and prevent universities from having to duplicate effort. It would even fix the concern of letting the nasty feds get their hands on all the dangerous data.

Just Stating the Obvious, at 3:50 pm EDT on May 22, 2008

You decide...

Are the data elements sent to the Clearinghouse really the same as those proposed for the unit record system? Hardly, in my opinion, but I’ll let you decide.

Clearinghouse required fields ——————————————- Name Permanent address Date of birth Enrollment status (full time or parttime) Expected graduation dateDirectory block indicator (FERPA suppression)

Unit Record fields ————————— Name SSN Permanent address Date of birth State of residence Gender Race/ethnicity Citizenship Program Degree plan Program length Varsity sport High school graduation date Institution UNITID Transaction date Redisclosure flag Start date End date Number of courses Credit hours Attendance Level Census date Transaction date Tuition and fees Total price of attendance State residency status Campus residency status Dependency status Federal grants State grants Institutional grants Loans Assistantships Transaction date Degree granted Degree date Exclusion flagReady for transfer

———————————————————

Granted, Clearinghouse does provide the ability for schools to upload other items should they wish, but these other itemsare optional.

Carol Livingstone, Associate Provost for Information Management at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, at 4:30 pm EDT on May 22, 2008

Questions for NAICU

So in what specific ways does this threaten student privacy? All of the data that would be linked by the unit record system already exists and is managed somewhere—the feds, colleges, and other sources (such as states) have information stored in different places. Are you suggesting that data integration is the violation of student privacy? Do you believe that states that have begun employing longitudinal student-level databases are also guilty of violating student privacy? What about when my alma matter sells my contact information to credit card companies or insurance companies?

As for the lack of a “compelling public policy reason” to support this unit record system, I think it may be disingenuous to link the unit record system merely to institutional accountability (question 2 of the survey), which is apparently a cause of panic these days. It seems to me that this system would also open doors to meaningful research on students that cannot be addressed by the limitations of NCES longitudinal studies. Given the changing dynamics of student characteristics and enrollment patterns in every corner of higher education, wouldn’t it be a benefit to the public to be able to conduct better research on how to maximize student persistence and success? What about gaining deeper insights into adult learners? Wouldn’t we able to learn much more about how higher education changes over time and create more responsive policy recommendations for institutional and political leaders?

Is higher education the only industry that believes that gaining quality information about their clients is a bad thing?

Differences in opinion is one thing, but working behind the scenes to have the very idea of a unit record system banned is hardly a “policy debate"—its pulling the rug out from what could be a very fruitful discussion between the public, researchers, institutional leaders and policymakers.

Driving Blind, at 5:00 pm EDT on May 22, 2008

Student Unit Record System

Kevin Carey presents a superficial review of some of the facts on this issue that, alas, misrepresents the current scope of the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), the complexity of creating a true “student unit record” and the politics associated with this issue over several years. I have a good deal of experience with this issue, have spent more than 20 years in various roles attempting to create an individual student record for every federal aid recipient within the Department of Education, rather than program-specific systems that did not communicate with each other.

That the NSC exists—and contains SSNs and selected other student data including enrollment and degree attainment—is undeniable. But those limited, but very important, data and functions are a world away from the true student unit record system about which higher education—and some in the Congress—expressed concerns about over-reaching proposals from the Department of Education. However, the relatively small amount of data submitted to the NSC is a small fraction of the dozens (hundreds under some scenarios) of data elements that are required for a true unit record system. It is not at all clear that the NSC is the appropriate site for a unit record system if one were to be created.

The question of when and for what purposes a unit record system is necessary is an important one. Ironically, the problem most often cited as justification for creating such a system—inaccurate graduation rates—can be addressed without a unit record system by simply changing the calculation. Currently, neither the institution from which the student transfers nor the accepting institutions can “claim” the student as a graduate. The simple answer would permit the accepting institution to include the transfer student in their graduation rate calculation. And the NSC knows where these students have enrolled and can track them to permit an accurate count.

Similarly, determining net price for students does not require a unit record system. In fact, neither families nor policy makers need to know net price for individual students at individual institutions. They need to know net price for classes of students(e.g., first year students by income) at individual institutions (e.g. for family enrollment decisions) and across institutions (e.g., to judge the effectiveness of aid policies).

Neither accurate graduation rate information nor net price information (or for that matter most important policy questions) require a very expensive central data system. In fact, industry has moved away from data wharehousing (moving data from disparate data bases into central data bases) to data mining these individual data bases. A straightforward approach to achieving Carey’s stated goals would require all institutions to calculate and present standard data on their web sites and provide powerful search tools to access and aggregate these data.

Higher education associations, including NASULGC, AAU and NAICU have begun working on such an approach, although these efforts appear to have escaped Carey’s attention.

I agree with Carey that this is a very important discussion to undertake. But participants in this discussion deserve full accounts and accurate information.

Brian K. Fitzgerald, at 6:55 am EDT on May 28, 2008