A new report by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) states that policies which reward or punish institutions of higher education based on student graduation rates present "a factually incorrect and misleading picture" of the factors that influence college persistence and the best strategies for boosting graduation rates.
On April 14 Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), ranking member of the House Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness held a briefing on the AFT report, which addresses potential strategies for helping students persist in college and eventually graduate. The report was authored by John B. Lee, president of JBL Associates, and Lawrence E. Gladieux, a consultant and former College Board policy analyst.
The AFT undertook the analysis with two guiding principles in mind. First, they said they "believe that institutions of higher education, particularly public institutions, must be--and, in fact, are--accountable for providing students with a quality education and for the proper management of federal funds." Second, the AFT said they "believe that student success should not be just a concern of college faculty and administrators, but of states and the federal government as well."
"Student Persistence in College: More Than Counting Caps and Gowns," analyzed existing data and presented seven basic findings. They are:
- Under the terms of the Student Right to Know Act (SRK), colleges are required to report graduation data. However, the SRK graduation snapshot can be misleading. Specifically, it fails to account for part-time students, some student transfers, and students who attend college not seeking a degree. "The SRK snapshot labels such students as failures when they are really successes."
- SRK graduation rates also count as dropouts some students who are simply taking a long time to graduate. "Students all over the country are persevering in college up to and beyond the six-year snapshot period, even if they have not graduated yet."
- Making higher education policies similar to PK-12 policies "is a mistake," because while PK-12 schools "are charged with achieving relatively uniform results for their students based on standards ... college students can and do pick (and pay for) the higher education they want."
- "Rewarding or punishing colleges on the basis of their graduation rates creates a perverse incentive for them to stop serving students who are likely to have problems in persistence, or alternatively, it could create an incentive to lower academic standards to ensure that graduation rates stay high."
- "More reliable data on college persistence can be found in a federal survey that followed postsecondary students over six years, 1995-2001. This survey provides data that is much superior to SRK's because it tracks students through college transfers and other changes in enrollment. By this measure, college persistence rates are higher than they often are assumed to be."
- Data show a significant persistence gap between high- and low-income and minority students, while "the same data indicate that institutional quality is not a significant factor impeding student persistence."
- Data also suggest that appropriate policies on financial aid, academic advisement, new school-college partnerships, and research "can alleviate students' financial and educational impediments and thus can play a significant role in improving persistence."
Instead of a system which uses rewards and penalties to hold colleges accountable, several other strategies--both positive and negative--could improve graduation rates, the AFT contends.
For instance, colleges could stop admitting nontraditional students who are likely to have persistence problems, or "ignore the situation, allowing some people to surmount the obstacles they face and others to drop by the wayside." Neither option is acceptable, according to the AFT.
Instead, they urge policymakers to "commit ourselves to provide the assistance needed to help all students succeed ... so that all students can advance as far as their ability, motivation, and hard work carry them."
Using graduation rates to hold school accountable has become a hot topic in recent weeks as lawmakers and higher education officials prepare for the forthcoming Higher Education Act reauthorization. Republican lawmakers have indicated that many Title IV issues will be addressed through an as-yet unreleased bill focused on increasing accountability at higher education institutions.
A recent U.S. Department of Education study has suggested that graduation rates may not accurately represent transfers.
By Elizabeth B. Guerard
NASFAA Assistant Director of Communications
Posted April 19, 2004 on
www.NASFAA.org, the Web Site of the
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA).
Copyright 2004. Redistribution to non-NASFAA institutions is prohibited
Please submit Web Site questions or comments to web@nasfaa.org
