NCHEMS Lumina Project on InterState Student Mobility

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 Nations 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
  RegulationsIncluding 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

10
(No Transcript)
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