Changing—The Reporting Of—Numbers

Although part-time students have received some attention within higher education research, they are largely missing from the data which is reported at the state and national level; data which is often used for important policy and funding decisions.

A story in the Inside Higher Ed. newsletter yesterday called attention to a group that is looking at college completion rates (for certificates, 2-year, and 4-year programs/degrees) in a new way. This group, aptly called Complete College America, is looking at what they are calling more complete completion data. The major difference from other completion/degree statistics? They are including part-time student completion rates, along with the rates for full-time students. Although there is no doubt that many institutions include part time students when compiling their own completion rates, this has not (yet) occurred at a national level.

The US Department of Education has largely ignored part time students in their data related to college completion. For example, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), which is the post-secondary data collection and reporting mechanism for the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, requires institutions to report enrollment figures annually. Although both full-time and part-time students are included in general enrollment data and the retention reports (retention being defined as “the percentage of students who enrolled in an institution in the fall and returned to that same institution the following year to continue their studies”), only full-time students are included in the data set for graduation rates. A few quick points to illustrate why this omission matters, and why Complete College America’s data could be so important to the future of higher education analysis and subsequent action:

· The data clearly shows that across all institutional types, part time students are retained at a significantly lower rate than full time students (NCES Condition of Education report, 2011);

· Naturally retention rates and completion/graduate rates are correlated (if one does not persist to their second year the likelihood of then returning to complete the degree or program at the same institution is very low);

· Part-time students tend to be from underrepresented student groups. They tend to be older, and according to a 2004 report from the Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences on Part-Time Undergraduates in Postsecondary Education (admittedly dated--- it seems that they stopped publishing this report after 2004…), they also tend to be less prepared for college than their full-time peers, female, Hispanic, and first-generation college students from low income backgrounds.

· IPEDS statistics show that in 2009 there were over 2.5 million part-time students enrolled in US colleges and universities.

In short, part-time students are not to be overlooked. Not only do they comprise a significant portion of our overall student population, their needs, experiences, and consequently, “results” are different. Although Complete College America has a way to go—to date only 33 states have chosen to report their ‘complete’ completion rates—I am pleased to see their expanded perspective.

My reason for this blog post however was not solely to call attention to the differences in completion rates among full and part-time students. Rather, it was to applaud a group for doing what the federal government has failed to do: Changing the reporting of Numbers. As our numbers change, reporting and related communication must also change to keep pace with the realities we face. With that in mind, given our Changing Numbers, what else do we need to change in our approach to reporting to the general public, to our students, and to other constituencies?

Just within the realm of retention/completion, I would like to see Complete College America, or another similar group, address the following:

· Standardized reporting of the success of transfer students (who are omitted altogether from not only the IPEDS completion/graduation figures, but also the retention figures)

· Standardized reporting of the success of students who begin their studies in the spring or summer academic term (also omitted altogether from the IPEDS data);

We know that transfer students have different needs, and that students who begin their education during an academic term other than the fall term have a different experience. When we start to include these groups of students in our national reports, the knowledge gained could help shape important polices and practices for these students.