John R. Wittstruck, Ph.D Missouri Department of Higher Education

1
John R. Wittstruck, Ph.DMissouri Department of
Higher Education

• What IPEDS Doesnt Tell
• Us Now
• - and Never Did -

2
IPEDS History 1981-1982

• Conference Room, 400 Maryland Avenue Washington,
  D.C.
• Frank Corrigan, NCES
• Roz Korb, NCES
• Curt Baker, NCES
• Dennis Jones, NCHEMS
• Gail Norris, Washington Coordinating Board
• John Wittstruck, SHEEO/NCES Network

3
Create a Postsecondary System of Data Collection

• Higher Education General Information Survey
  (HEGIS) limited understanding of beyond high
  school education and training.
• Needed an integrated system to capture all beyond
  high school education and training.

4
How Did IPEDS Come About and What Was it
Expected to Do?

• The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
  System (IPEDS) was born on a blackboard in a
  conference Room at 400 Maryland Avenue.
• Provide for reporting of similar data by private
  career schools, two- and four-year certificate,
  associate and higher degree-granting
  institutions.
• Make accreditation an institutional
  characteristic, not the delimiter of the universe
  of institutions surveyed.

5
Advisory Committees Established, Including
Representatives from all Sectors

• Institutional Characteristics
• Enrollment
• Finance
• Completions
• Faculty and Staff

6
Major Discussion Institutionally-based Surveys
versus Student-based Surveys

• What the universe of institutions could best
  provide and what the data could show by
  institution and by state.
• What could best be collected through
  student-based surveys (NPSAS, NLS, BPS, BB,
  NSOPF) and what could be reported on a national
  level.
• States and institutions argued for
  institutionally-based surveys. NCES argued for
  both institutionally-based and student-based
  surveys.

7
Four-years to Design and Test

• Gaining consensus for IPEDS was a challenge, but
  
• It began with the fall 1986 data collection
  package

8
After Eleven Years, What Have We Learned?

• The IPEDS Universe is larger than we thought.
• Institutional role and missions are not captured
  well.
• Avocational and Recreational, Customized and
  Contract Training, Continuing Education, Short
  Term Program Enrollments and Completions,
  Distance Learning, Adult Learners, among others
  not captured.
• IPEDS misses a lot particularly with public
  community colleges

9
What Is the Problem?

• Organizational Silos at Institutions
• State Public Policy Indifference
• Institutional, State, and Federal Revenue Streams

10
IPEDS Designed for Two-year Junior Colleges, Not
Local or Regional Community Colleges

• Focus on formal degree- or certificate-credit
  enrollments, completions, finances, faculty and
  staff
• Not much on non-degree credit enrollments,
  completions, finances, faculty and staff (other
  than non-degree students in degree credit courses
  and programs).

11
What Can Be - Is Being - Done?Improving
Coordination and Governance
Because responsibility for adult education and
workforce training programs is typically
scattered across multiple state agencies, states
should focus on coordinating these efforts.
These agencies can include the departments of
education, labor, economic development, social
services, and postsecondary education and
governing boards, as well as the governors
workforce commissions. But among these agencies,
seldom is there a single, powerful policy-making
group advocating for adult learning. Investing
Wisely in Adult Learning is Key to State
Prosperity Southern Regional Education
Board 2005
12
Establish Specific Institutional and State Goals
for Adult Education

• Increase Adult Basic Education and English as a
  Second Language enrollments and completions.
• Increase number of adults who earn GED
  credentials and go into or return to the
  workforce and/or enroll in postsecondary
  education and training programs.
• Increase participation in and completion of
  postsecondary certificates and degrees.

13
Capture Baseline andImprovement Data

• 27,000 students enrolled in postsecondary
  technical education certificate and degree credit
  programs in Missouri public two-year colleges in
  2003-2004.
• IPEDS data did not capture information about
• 12,263 working adults from 35 participating
  companies receiving training through the
  Community College New Jobs program
• 12,014 working adults from 200 companies
  receiving customized training.
• 1,657 working adults from 154 companies receiving
  contract training.

14
Rural and Suburban Community Colleges are Vital
to Adult Learning and Training in Missouri

• Provided education and training through the
  Community College New Jobs Program to 11 percent
  of participants (1,302 out of 12,263) at 31
  percent of the participating companies (11 out of
  35 companies)
• Provided Customized Training to 44 percent of
  participants (12,263 out of 27,813) at 45 percent
  of participating companies (91 out of 200
  companies)
• Provided Contract Training to 67 percent of
  participants (1,105 out of 1,647) at 77 percent
  of participating companies (119 out of 154)

15
IPEDS Did Not Include

• Enrollments on these adult learners
• Revenue and expenditures for these courses and
  programs
• Adult learners completing these education and
  training programs
• Staff involved in these education and training
  programs
• Types of education and training programs
  delivered
• Number and types of companies involved

16
These Data are Dispersed

• Within institutions (in institutional silos)
• Among different agencies and departments of state
  government
• Among different departments of the federal
  government

17
The Time to Change IPEDS is Now

• Times have changed
• Tools have changed
• Instruction and training needs have changed
• Learners have changed

18
It Has Been A Pleasure

• Thank you
• Questions Please

19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)