Postsecondary Education
Many States Collect Graduates' Employment Information, but Clearer Guidance on Student Privacy Requirements Is Needed Gao ID: GAO-10-927 September 27, 2010Postsecondary education plays an important role in producing a skilled workforce able to compete in the global economy. Some stakeholders have suggested that collecting information on graduates' employment outcomes--whether they are employed in their field of study, for example--will provide better information to help assess the impact of a postsecondary education. The Higher Education Opportunity Act directed GAO to study the information that states have on the employment outcomes of postsecondary graduates. This report describes (1) the extent and purposes for which states collect employment-related information and the challenges they faced in doing so, (2) potential approaches to expanding states' collection efforts across states and nationwide, and (3) how selected states and schools collaborate with employers to align education and workforce needs. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed relevant research and interviewed officials from the U.S. Departments of Education (Education) and Labor, as well as postsecondary institutions, state agencies, and employers in seven states and two countries selected based on their data collection capabilities.
Twenty-six states collect some employment-related data, such as data on salary and industry, on individual postsecondary graduates by linking student databases with states' labor data, according to a national 2010 study of state education databases. Officials in seven states GAO contacted reported using graduates' employment data for a variety of purposes, including economic development and institutional feedback. For example, one state reported using the data to compile information on the educational level of the local workforce to accommodate an out-of-state employer interested in opening offices in that area. However, some stakeholders cautioned against potentially inappropriate uses of the data, such as holding institutions accountable for the employment outcomes of graduates, noting that such outcomes are often beyond schools' control. Additionally, some state officials said that they faced challenges in their data collection efforts, including the means by which they can appropriately link student and employment data and comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which prohibits disclosing a student's education records without written consent. Education officials acknowledged that confusion exists among some states and said they are planning to provide further guidance through various means, but as of September 2010, these plans had not been implemented. A review of relevant literature and interviews with state officials and experts helped identify three potential approaches for expanding the collection of graduates' employment data, but many stakeholders emphasized the need to decide upon the specific purposes of the system prior to creating it. Possible approaches include expanding direct state-to-state data sharing, using a third party to expand interstate data sharing, and expanding existing national education-related surveys. An advantage of state-to-state data sharing is to follow individual students who go to school in one state and get a job in another. However, many stakeholders noted that sharing student data across states raises privacy concerns under FERPA, much like sharing data across different agencies within the state. In Australia and the United Kingdom, postsecondary institutions conduct national surveys of all recent graduates to obtain employment and other outcome information. States and schools that GAO contacted collaborate with employers to align education and workforce needs in several ways, including through workforce investment boards, advisory committees, and employer surveys. The extent of school efforts to partner with employers varied depending on the mission and goals of the institution, with community colleges and vocational schools-- with their emphasis on career and technical training--making greater use than 4-year schools of advisory committees. For example, a private, nonprofit technical school in one state has an advisory committee for each program that drives the curriculum for that program. On the basis of employer input, the school discontinued its auto body program because of a lack of opportunities and began networking with employers to identify programs in new areas. GAO recommends that Education clarify means by which states can collect and share graduates' employment information under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and establish a time frame for doing so. Education agreed with the recommendation.
GAO-10-927, Postsecondary Education: Many States Collect Graduates' Employment Information, but Clearer Guidance on Student Privacy Requirements Is Needed
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-927
entitled 'Postsecondary Education: Many States Collect Graduates'
Employment Information, but Clearer Guidance on Student Privacy
Requirements Is Needed' which was released on September 27, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2010:
Postsecondary Education:
Many States Collect Graduates' Employment Information, but Clearer
Guidance on Student Privacy Requirements Is Needed:
GAO-10-927:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-927, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Postsecondary education plays an important role in producing a skilled
workforce able to compete in the global economy. Some stakeholders
have suggested that collecting information on graduates‘ employment
outcomes”whether they are employed in their field of study, for
example”will provide better information to help assess the impact of a
postsecondary education. The Higher Education Opportunity Act directed
GAO to study the information that states have on the employment
outcomes of postsecondary graduates. This report describes (1) the
extent and purposes for which states collect employment-related
information and the challenges they faced in doing so, (2) potential
approaches to expanding states‘ collection efforts across states and
nationwide, and (3) how selected states and schools collaborate with
employers to align education and workforce needs. To address these
objectives, GAO reviewed relevant research and interviewed officials
from the U.S. Departments of Education (Education) and Labor, as well
as postsecondary institutions, state agencies, and employers in seven
states and two countries selected based on their data collection
capabilities.
What GAO Found:
Twenty-six states collect some employment-related data, such as data
on salary and industry, on individual postsecondary graduates by
linking student databases with states‘ labor data, according to a
national 2010 study of state education databases. Officials in seven
states GAO contacted reported using graduates‘ employment data for a
variety of purposes, including economic development and institutional
feedback. For example, one state reported using the data to compile
information on the educational level of the local workforce to
accommodate an out-of-state employer interested in opening offices in
that area. However, some stakeholders cautioned against potentially
inappropriate uses of the data, such as holding institutions
accountable for the employment outcomes of graduates, noting that such
outcomes are often beyond schools‘ control. Additionally, some state
officials said that they faced challenges in their data collection
efforts, including the means by which they can appropriately link
student and employment data and comply with the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which prohibits disclosing a student‘s
education records without written consent. Education officials
acknowledged that confusion exists among some states and said they are
planning to provide further guidance through various means, but as of
September 2010, these plans had not been implemented.
A review of relevant literature and interviews with state officials
and experts helped identify three potential approaches for expanding
the collection of graduates‘ employment data, but many stakeholders
emphasized the need to decide upon the specific purposes of the system
prior to creating it. Possible approaches include expanding direct
state-to-state data sharing, using a third party to expand interstate
data sharing, and expanding existing national education-related
surveys. An advantage of state-to-state data sharing is to follow
individual students who go to school in one state and get a job in
another. However, many stakeholders noted that sharing student data
across states raises privacy concerns under FERPA, much like sharing
data across different agencies within the state. In Australia and the
United Kingdom, postsecondary institutions conduct national surveys of
all recent graduates to obtain employment and other outcome
information.
States and schools that GAO contacted collaborate with employers to
align education and workforce needs in several ways, including through
workforce investment boards, advisory committees, and employer
surveys. The extent of school efforts to partner with employers varied
depending on the mission and goals of the institution, with community
colleges and vocational schools”with their emphasis on career and
technical training”making greater use than 4-year schools of advisory
committees. For example, a private, nonprofit technical school in one
state has an advisory committee for each program that drives the
curriculum for that program. On the basis of employer input, the
school discontinued its auto body program because of a lack of
opportunities and began networking with employers to identify programs
in new areas.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that Education clarify means by which states can
collect and share graduates‘ employment information under the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act and establish a time frame for
doing so. Education agreed with the recommendation.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-927] or key
components. For more information, contact Katherine Iritani, 202-512-
7215, iritanik@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
About Half of States Collect Employment-Related Information on
Graduates for a Variety of Purposes, but Compliance with Student
Privacy Requirements Presents Challenges:
Several Potential Approaches Exist for Expanding the Collection of
Graduates' Employment Data:
States and Schools Collaborate with Employers in Several Ways to Align
Education and Workforce Needs:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Selected Characteristics of States' Postsecondary Student
Unit Record Data Systems:
Appendix III: Examples of Selected National Surveys of Postsecondary
Education Students:
Appendix IV: Structure of Postsecondary Education in Australia and
United Kingdom and Data Collection Methods:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Data Capabilities of Selected States and Extent to Which
These States' Postsecondary Data Systems Collect Certain Education and
Employment Data on Graduates:
Table 2: Description of Selected Possible Approaches to Expand the
Collection of Graduates' Employment Information:
Figure:
Figure 1: States Maintaining Postsecondary SUR Databases That Capture
Employment-Related Data from Unemployment Insurance Wage Records:
Abbreviations:
B&B: Baccalaureate and Beyond:
BPS: Beginning Postsecondary Students:
ELS: Education Longitudinal Study:
FERPA: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act:
HEOA: Higher Education Opportunity Act:
K-12: kindergarten through 12th grade:
SHEEO: State Higher Education Executive Officers:
SUR: student unit record:
TAFE: Training and Further Education:
UI: unemployment insurance:
WRIS: Wage Record Interchange System:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 27, 2010:
The Honorable Tom Harkin:
Chairman:
The Honorable Michael B. Enzi:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable George Miller:
Chairman:
The Honorable John Kline:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Education and Labor:
House of Representatives:
While individuals may pursue postsecondary education for multiple
reasons, one of the key reasons for doing so is to obtain employment.
[Footnote 1] Postsecondary education plays an important role in
producing a skilled workforce able to compete in the global economy.
To this end, the U.S. Department of Education (Education) provided
more than $110 billion in financial aid in fiscal year 2009 to help
students finance the cost of a postsecondary education. In today's
economic climate, and because of the escalating costs of postsecondary
education, policymakers and consumers have noted the need for reliable
information about what happens to students after they graduate. For
instance, questions about college graduates from different programs
arise. Among them are the following: Are the graduates employed? Are
they working in their field of study? Are they working in another
state? To follow students' progress from postsecondary education to
the workforce over time and across state lines, there is growing
interest in examining the employment information states currently are
collecting, and the feasibility of collecting data across states to
address student mobility.
Section 1102 of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) directed
GAO to study the information that states have on employment of
postsecondary education graduates.[Footnote 2] Essentially, the
mandate requires a study of the availability of information at the
state level regarding postsecondary graduates' employment, possible
options for collecting and displaying such data, and how industry
evaluates postsecondary education programs. This report addresses the
following questions: (1) To what extent and for what purposes are
states collecting employment-related information on postsecondary
graduates, and what challenges have they faced in doing so? (2) What
are the potential approaches and challenges to expanding the
collection of graduates' employment information across states and
nationwide? (3) How do selected states and postsecondary institutions
collaborate with employers to align education and workforce needs?
To determine the extent to which states collect employment information
on postsecondary graduates and the methods used to collect such
information, we reviewed relevant research and studies, and consulted
with subject matter experts. We reviewed information from a 2007
report by the Lumina Foundation[Footnote 3] and a 2010 report by the
State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO),[Footnote 4] to
obtain information on the extent to which states are collecting
employment-related and other outcome information on postsecondary
education graduates, and how states obtain such information. In
addition, to further understand how states collect, use, and display
graduates' employment-related information, we selected seven states--
Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and
Washington--for a combination of site visits and telephone interviews.
These states were selected to reflect a geographically diverse set of
states with a range of abilities to collect student and employment
information. Within each selected state, we interviewed officials from
the departments of higher education and labor; representatives from
selected public, private, and for-profit postsecondary institutions,
such as 2-year and 4-year colleges; and one or more employers. Our
findings from these states are for illustrative purposes only and are
not generalizable nationally. Additionally, while we asked states
about what they did to validate the data they collect on students, we
did not use data collected by states to substantiate any of our
findings.
To identify the potential approaches and challenges for expanding
efforts to collect graduates' employment information, we focused on
the states' efforts to share data both internally and with other
states.[Footnote 5] We also interviewed officials from federal and
state education and labor departments, experts in the areas of state
student data systems and postsecondary education, as well as
representatives from postsecondary education organizations and
institutions. We also examined postsecondary data collection systems
of two selected countries--Australia and the United Kingdom--to obtain
an international perspective (see appendix IV). We selected these
countries primarily on the basis of expert recommendations about
countries known to be active in collecting outcome data on
postsecondary graduates and preparing graduates for the workforce. In
addition, we reviewed the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA), which includes requirements related to the use and disclosure
of data on individual students.[Footnote 6] To determine how selected
states, schools, and employers identify and address workforce needs,
we interviewed subject matter experts and officials in our seven
selected states, including members of local workforce organizations
and employers, and reviewed relevant provisions of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998.[Footnote 7]
We conducted this performance audit from July 2009 to September 2010
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I
discusses our scope and methodology in further detail.
Background:
A growing number of states are recognizing the potential of collecting
data at the state level to inform changes in policy and practice that
can lead to improved educational outcomes for students. State-level
student unit record (SUR) data systems are one example of how
individual students can be tracked over time--often called
longitudinal data systems--as they move through the education system.
In each state, a number of separate SUR data systems containing
individually identified student data may exist at all levels of the
education system. For example, a state may have multiple SUR systems
that capture information on each student's educational data from
kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12), with each school or school
district maintaining its own SUR database, and other SUR systems that
capture information on students at postsecondary institutions. Other
state data systems capture information on people employed in the
state. However, these systems historically have not been integrated
with each other and therefore have not allowed for the tracking of
students as they progress from one education level to the next and
finally into the workforce. Furthermore, there is considerable
variation across data systems with respect to the data elements
collected. The focus of this report is on state-level SUR data systems
containing postsecondary data that other research has found are
generally maintained by the state's department of higher education or
a similar agency that coordinates postsecondary education efforts.
The types of student data maintained in postsecondary SUR data systems
include the following:
* basic demographic and enrollment data such as name, gender,
ethnicity, major, degree granted, and academic history and:
* financial aid information such as family income, expected family
contribution, and financial assistance from state, federal, and other
sources.
Because most SUR databases historically have contained only education
information, states must use other sources to capture wage and other
employment-related information. One such source is the unemployment
insurance (UI) database, which contains wage records on certain
workers in the state and is maintained by all states as part of their
administration of the federal unemployment insurance program. States'
UI wage records generally include employees' wages, industry, and
Social Security number. States compile UI wage records from data
submitted each quarter by employers. Although UI wage records contain
basic wage information for the majority of workers, certain categories
of employees are excluded, such as self-employed persons, independent
contractors, federal employees, and military personnel.[Footnote 8]
At the time of our review, several federal initiatives were under way
that promoted the linkage of education to employment databases. One
such initiative is Education's Grant Program for Statewide
Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS), authorized by the Educational
Technical Assistance Act of 2002,[Footnote 9] through which Education
awards competitive grants to states for the development of
longitudinal data systems based on individual student records. While
the grants initially focused on integrating the various K-12 systems
maintained by schools and school districts, the focus has recently
shifted to following students from prekindergarten through
postsecondary education and into the workforce. In fiscal year 2010,
Education awarded $250 million in SLDS grants to 20 states. Another
initiative is the Department of Labor's (Labor) Workforce Data Quality
Initiative, which supports the development of longitudinal data
systems that integrate education and workforce data using funds
provided under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010.[Footnote 10]
Labor announced the availability of approximately $12.2 million to
fund these competitive grants, for which applications were due by
August 2010.
In establishing data linkages among agencies and sharing data from a
student's education records, entities must be aware of and comply with
FERPA, which generally affords parents and eligible students access to
student education records while limiting the disclosure of those
records to third parties.[Footnote 11] Specifically, FERPA requires
educational agencies and institutions that receive Education funds--
such as schools, school districts, colleges, and universities--to
provide parents and eligible students with access to education records
and generally prohibits the disclosure of personally identifiable
information from education records without the prior written consent
of the parent or eligible student, unless an exception to the FERPA
general consent requirement applies. One exception to the general
consent requirement in FERPA permits educational agencies and
institutions to disclose, without consent, personally identifiable
information from students' education records to state and local
educational authorities for the purpose of an audit or evaluation of
federal-or state-supported education programs, or for the enforcement
of or compliance with federal legal requirements that relate to those
programs.[Footnote 12] Representatives of state and local educational
authorities--such as a state educational agency--may nonconsensually
redisclose personally identifiable information from students'
education records on behalf of the educational agency or institution
in accordance with the redisclosure requirements of FERPA.[Footnote
13] That is, the redisclosure must meet the statutory and regulatory
exceptions to consent in FERPA. Accordingly, Education has interpreted
FERPA to permit an educational authority to redisclose personally
identifiable information from education records to another educational
authority if the latter entity has the legal authority to audit or
evaluate the federal-or state-supported education program of the
educational agency or institution that disclosed the education records
in the first place.[Footnote 14]
About Half of States Collect Employment-Related Information on
Graduates for a Variety of Purposes, but Compliance with Student
Privacy Requirements Presents Challenges:
About half of all states collect employment-related information on
postsecondary graduates. This is usually accomplished by linking the
state's postsecondary data system with labor data, such as UI wage
records maintained by state labor agencies. According to the 2010
study on postsecondary data systems conducted by SHEEO, 45 states,
including the District of Columbia, have at least one postsecondary
data system[Footnote 15] (see app. II for a list of states with
postsecondary systems and their characteristics). Of these states, 26
have the capacity to capture employment information by linking their
SUR data system with other state-level labor/workforce data, such as
UI wage records (see figure 1).
Figure 1: States Maintaining Postsecondary SUR Databases That Capture
Employment-Related Data from Unemployment Insurance Wage Records:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map]
State has no postsecondary SUR data system:
Delaware:
Idaho:
Iowa:
Michigan:
Nebraska:
New Hampshire:
State has a postsecondary SUR data system:
Alabama:
Arizona:
Arkansas:
Colorado:
Connecticut:
District of Columbia:
Hawaii:
Illinois:
Louisiana:
Massachusetts:
New Jersey:
New York:
Pennsylvania:
South Carolina:
South Dakota:
Tennessee:
Vermont:
Wisconsin:
Wyoming:
State has a postsecondary SUR data system and links it with UI data:
Alaska:
California:
Florida:
Georgia:
Indiana:
Kansas:
Kentucky:
Maine:
Maryland:
Minnesota:
Mississippi:
Missouri:
Montana:
Nevada:
New Mexico:
North Carolina:
North Dakota:
Ohio:
Oklahoma:
Oregon:
Rhode Island:
Texas:
Utah:
Virginia:
Washington:
West Virginia:
Sources: SHEEO Report: Strong Foundations: The State of State
Postsecondary Data Systems,State Higher Education Executive Officers
(July 2010); Art Explosion (map).
Note: According to SHEEO, Iowa had limitations to its data system and
enrollment numbers that precluded it from being included in the report.
[End of figure]
Further, according to the SHEEO report, most of the state
postsecondary data systems include information on public institutions
within the state.[Footnote 16] Of the 26 states with postsecondary
data systems that linked to employment data, 24 collect data from both
public 2-and 4-year institutions and the other 2 states collect data
only from public 4-year institutions. Furthermore, 8 of the 26 states
collect data from independent, nonprofit institutions, and 5 collect
data from for-profit institutions.
The types of employment-related data collected by the 26 states that
link student data with labor data include the following:
* whether graduates were employed in-state,
* wages earned,
* employer name, and:
* industry of employment.
Of the 7 states we selected for review, 6 have one or more SUR data
systems containing postsecondary data, and 4 states linked those data
systems to labor data to capture employment information on graduates.
Florida state education officials reported that they also link their
postsecondary data system to federal databases such as those
maintained by the U.S. Postal Service, Office of Personnel Management,
and Department of Defense to obtain employment data on federal
employees. Since UI wage records do not capture information for
federal employees, this capability allows Florida officials to obtain
employment information on postsecondary graduates who are employed by
the federal government.
Some of the specific education and employment data elements collected
on postsecondary graduates by the selected states include individual
students' courses of study during college, job obtained within a
particular industry, their salary once they were employed, and the
type of financial assistance they received while in college (see table
1).
Table 1: Data Capabilities of Selected States and Extent to Which
These States' Postsecondary Data Systems Collect Certain Education and
Employment Data on Graduates:
Characteristics of selected states' postsecondary data systems: Has
postsecondary data system;
Selected states: Colorado: [Check];
Selected states: Connecticut[A]: [Check];
Selected states: Florida: [Check];
Selected states: Indiana: [Check];
Selected states: Michigan: [Empty];
Selected states: North Dakota: [Check];
Selected states: Washington: [Check].
Characteristics of selected states' postsecondary data systems: Links
postsecondary data system to labor data;
Selected states: Colorado: [Empty];
Selected states: Connecticut[A]: [Empty];
Selected states: Florida: [Check];
Selected states: Indiana: [Check];
Selected states: Michigan: [Empty];
Selected states: North Dakota: [Check];
Selected states: Washington: [Check].
Data elements collected: Course of study;
Selected states: Colorado: [Check];
Selected states: Connecticut[A]: [Check];
Selected states: Florida: [Check];
Selected states: Indiana: [Check];
Selected states: Michigan: [Empty];
Selected states: North Dakota: [Check];
Selected states: Washington: [Check].
Data elements collected: Job obtained within employer's industry;
Selected states: Colorado: [Empty];
Selected states: Connecticut[A]: [Check];
Selected states: Florida: [Check];
Selected states: Indiana: [Check];
Selected states: Michigan: [Empty];
Selected states: North Dakota: [Check];
Selected states: Washington: [Check].
Data elements collected: Whether job is related to course of study;
Selected states: Colorado: [Empty];
Selected states: Connecticut[A]: [Empty];
Selected states: Florida: [Empty];
Selected states: Indiana: [Empty];
Selected states: Michigan: [Empty];
Selected states: North Dakota: [Empty];
Selected states: Washington: [Empty].
Data elements collected: Salary;
Selected states: Colorado: [Empty];
Selected states: Connecticut[A]: [Check];
Selected states: Florida: [Check];
Selected states: Indiana: [Check];
Selected states: Michigan: [Empty];
Selected states: North Dakota: [Check];
Selected states: Washington: [Check].
Data elements collected: Student satisfaction with job preparation;
Selected states: Colorado: [Empty];
Selected states: Connecticut[A]: [Empty];
Selected states: Florida: [Empty];
Selected states: Indiana: [Empty];
Selected states: Michigan: [Empty];
Selected states: North Dakota: [Empty];
Selected states: Washington: [Empty].
Data elements collected: Financial aid received;
Selected states: Colorado: [Check];
Selected states: Connecticut[A]: [Check];
Selected states: Florida: [Check];
Selected states: Indiana: [Check];
Selected states: Michigan: [Empty];
Selected states: North Dakota: [Check];
Selected states: Washington: [Check].
Source: GAO analysis of data capabilities of selected states and the
following data elements specified in HEOA mandate: type of job
obtained, whether job was related to course of study, starting salary,
student's satisfaction with his or her preparation for job, guidance
provided with respect to securing job, and type of assistance received
for recipients of federal student aid.
[A] While Connecticut does not link its postsecondary SUR data system
to UI wage records, a state labor official said that the state has
linked postsecondary data provided directly from public postsecondary
institutions to UI wage data to capture certain labor elements
required for annual reporting requirements.
[End of table]
In contrast, we found that occupational information was generally not
available in states' labor systems, in part because their UI wage
records often do not capture this information. Such information can
indicate whether an individual got a job in a field related to his or
her course of study during school. The UI wage records maintained by
states commonly contain data that identify the industry--such as
health care or retail--that employed individuals, but according to
Labor, state labor agencies generally do not require employers to
identify occupations in a way that would reflect the type of job--such
as nurse or cashier. An industry code would indicate, for example,
that a graduate with a nursing degree or certificate is employed in
the health care industry but not whether the graduate is employed as a
nurse or an administrative assistant. Several state officials and
experts we spoke with believed that collecting the occupation code
from employers would be valuable. However, some also acknowledged that
this would require burdensome and costly system changes for both
states and employers. One official in Connecticut estimated that it
would initially cost the state approximately $800,000 to add
occupation codes to its unemployment insurance data system, and about
$400,000 each year thereafter.
Our selected states also reported that they were not able to use their
data systems to gauge students' satisfaction with the preparation they
received for the job obtained. Instead, student satisfaction
information was usually collected through surveys administered by
postsecondary institutions. For example, state officials and
representatives at some institutions we interviewed said that student
satisfaction surveys were typically conducted by for-profit
institutions and certain professional programs at 4-year universities
in the state because these schools were required to collect outcome
information, such as placement rates, in order to satisfy national
accreditation requirements.
Federal grant funds could result in further changes to states' systems
for capturing employment information on graduates. All 7 states we
contacted had received federal SLDS grants from Education, and some
have used or planned to use these grants in part to develop student
data systems, or expand their efforts to capture employment data using
existing SUR data systems, according to state officials. For example,
Colorado, which had a SUR data system containing postsecondary data
but was not capturing any employment data from its UI wage record
system, had established in 2009 a Government Data Advisory Board to
oversee, among other things, the development of a comprehensive data
system that would allow data to be collected on students from
prekindergarten through their entry into the workforce. According to
officials in Michigan, which had no postsecondary SUR database in
place, the state planned to use the grant to develop a data system
that linked K-12, postsecondary, and workforce data.
Officials in Selected States Report Using Graduates' Employment Data
to Promote Economic Development, Provide Institutional Feedback, and
Raise Consumer Awareness:
Selected states reported using graduates' employment-related data for
a variety of purposes:
* Promote economic development. One official in Florida mentioned that
the state workforce agency used the data to compile information on the
educational level of the local workforce population at the request of
an out-of-state employer that was interested in opening offices in
that area. State workforce officials in Indiana also said that they
use the student unit record database to inform prospective employers
about the educational attainment of local postsecondary graduates,
their geographic location within the state, and whether these
graduates are still seeking employment. Officials in North Dakota's
Department of Commerce said that they combine graduates' employment
information with labor market information to determine the extent to
which graduates are prepared for employment in high-growth industries.
* Provide institutional feedback. North Dakota used the database to
provide feedback to institutions. Using the data, the state compiled
reports on the total number of degrees awarded, by institution, and
whether graduates who earned those degrees were employed in-state.
Indiana used its database to approve a master of liberal arts program
at a particular campus. To do so, the state analyzed employment
outcomes of graduates of a similar liberal arts program at other
campuses and determined that these individuals were more likely to be
employed in-state and have higher earnings after completing their
degree.
* Raise consumer awareness. To better inform prospective students,
some states that collect employment information reported that they
make aggregate data and annual reports on graduates' employment
publicly available, generally through their state Web site. For
example, according to a state education official in Florida, the state
higher education agency publishes an annual outcomes report that
provides information on numbers of graduates, average salary, and
whether they are working in-state. This report provides aggregate
employment information on graduates and is publicly available on the
state's Web site. Furthermore, some institutions we contacted,
including for-profit and 4-year schools, also reported providing
outcome information on the school's or state's Web site such as
placement rates and average salary.
[Side bar:
How Australia and the United Kingdom Use and Display Graduates‘
Employment Information:
Government officials we spoke with in Australia reported using
education and employment information”collected through their
Australian Graduate Survey”in a variety of ways. One way is to use the
information as an accountability tool for overseeing universities that
receive monetary incentives through a performance fund that is partly
based on survey results. Australia also collects employment-related
information on vocational education graduates and uses data collected
at the time of enrollment and completion to determine how many
students are trained in specific occupations, evaluate performance of
training providers, and allocate funding, among other purposes. In the
United Kingdom, employment information is also obtained through
surveys of university and college graduates, which are used to help
rank these institutions. Both countries make survey results publicly
available through the Web sites of agencies that administer the
surveys. For example, Australia publishes five annual reports based on
information collected through the graduate surveys and made available
online through the agency‘s Web site. These reports provide
information on graduates such as earnings and course experiences.
Prospective students can also use an online tool to view employment
information on vocational schools, and can query the data through this
tool to customize the data to their needs. End of side bar]
However, some stakeholders cautioned against what they considered to
be potentially inappropriate uses of the data. Stakeholders raised
concerns that employment outcomes that are beyond a school's control
should not be used as a basis for assessing the quality of the
education provided by the school or adequacy of preparing students for
employment. For example, several postsecondary institution
representatives in Michigan mentioned that many external factors such
as the local economy are not captured by data systems even though they
might influence whether graduates can successfully obtain employment.
In addition, stakeholders were also concerned that employment outcome
data may not be comparable from one institution to another, depending
on how specific data elements are defined, such as job placement rate.
Finally, representatives from several 4-year institutions and higher
education associations noted that there are other reasons students
choose to go to college besides employment, including enhancing skills
and engaging in lifelong learning.
Selected States Faced Challenges in Their Data Collection Efforts,
Particularly Understanding Requirements for Protecting Student Privacy:
One challenge cited by several state officials we interviewed was how
to link postsecondary graduate student and employment data without
violating student privacy requirements under FERPA. Linking student
and employment data could entail sharing student records with entities
outside education agencies, such as labor agencies, which in turn
could violate FERPA. While FERPA may allow for the nonconsensual
disclosure of personally identifiable information from student records
with state educational agencies, as long as it is for a purpose
permitted under one of FERPA's exceptions, such as for program
evaluation to improve instruction,[Footnote 17] it does not explicitly
address the nonconsensual disclosure of personally identifiable
information from education records to a state department of labor for
the purpose of linking student and employment records or how these
linkages could be performed. Consequently, some states have been
unwilling to link their education data systems to labor data.
Officials in Colorado and Michigan--states not linking education data
to UI wage records--cited FERPA as a roadblock to their states'
efforts to develop a comprehensive database that follows students
after graduation. Moreover, the SHEEO report found that over half of
states cited FERPA as a barrier to linking postsecondary data systems
with labor data.
The means by which state education agencies can link or share student
data consistent with FERPA can be complicated. According to
stakeholders, how a state captures, maintains, and uses SUR data can
depend on the individual state's laws, systems, or databases, and
state educational agencies may need to take certain steps, such as
establishing data use agreements among state agencies that share data
in order to comply with FERPA and applicable state laws. States such
as Florida and Indiana have established systems whereby educational
data are not shared with the labor agency;[Footnote 18] rather, the
labor agency provides data to the educational agency, which then
performs the linking function in-house within an education agency or
state university system.[Footnote 19]
Some state officials and other stakeholders we interviewed said that
states' varying interpretations of FERPA have caused confusion, with
one national stakeholder adding that the stakeholder has called upon
Education to clarify FERPA so that states understand how they can link
education and employment data. Education officials acknowledged that
despite the agency's issuance of FERPA regulations in December 9,
2008, confusion remains among states in how to interpret FERPA's
redisclosure provisions for sharing education data with noneducation
entities.[Footnote 20] Education officials said that they were taking
steps to clarify how states can develop and use data in statewide
longitudinal data systems consistent with FERPA. As previously
discussed, many states are developing or enhancing statewide systems
under Education's Grant Program for Statewide Longitudinal Data
Systems, which supports data integration including education and
workforce information. Education officials specifically said they were
planning to improve the guidance and technical assistance available to
education data stakeholders through activities that include issuing a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; creating a Chief Privacy Officer
position within Education; releasing technical briefs related to data
security, confidentiality, and privacy; and launching a Privacy
Technical Assistance Center. As of September 2010, Education said it
was engaged in implementing these actions, with a timeline for
completion expected to occur during fall 2010 and early winter 2011.
At the time of this report, Education had not provided information on
whether its guidance would specifically address linking education and
employment data.
In addition, several state officials we spoke with were also
challenged by trying to collect information on graduates who obtain
employment outside of their state. Specifically, some state officials
reported that existing postsecondary data systems are able to track
students within the boundaries of a given state, but they have been
rarely used to track students across state lines, in part based on the
lack of common data elements, standardized definitions, and
interoperable data systems.
Several Potential Approaches Exist for Expanding the Collection of
Graduates' Employment Data:
On the basis of our review of relevant literature and interviews with
numerous state officials and subject matter experts, we identified
several potential approaches for expanding the collection of
postsecondary graduates' employment information on a broad level, such
as across states or nationwide. These include direct state-to-state or
regional data-sharing arrangements, using third parties to assist
state efforts in a variety of ways, and expanded national surveys that
collect employment-related data.[Footnote 21] Each approach presents
challenges. Regardless of how collection efforts might expand, many
state officials and other stakeholders we spoke to emphasized the
importance of having a clear understanding of the specific policy
questions that the data system should address prior to creating it.
For example, state officials in Colorado noted that when the policy
questions are known, it makes determining the required data elements
needed to answer those questions easier and can decrease unnecessary
data collection and costs.
Expanding Direct State-to-State Data Sharing:
One approach to expanding collection efforts is for states to directly
share postsecondary graduates' employment data with each other, which
can be done through data-sharing agreements. This approach allows
states to expand their data on graduates' subsequent employment and
allows analysis at the individual student or postsecondary institution
level.[Footnote 22] One example of the use of this approach is the
data-sharing agreement between the Washington State Board for
Community and Technical Colleges and Oregon's labor agency to provide
UI wage data from the latter state. Board officials said this
agreement allows the board to follow the employment progress of
students who graduate from community and technical colleges in
Washington and find a job in Oregon. This additional employment
information has enabled Washington to better evaluate the education
students received, since it has more data to determine whether
Washington community college graduates are working in the field in
which they were trained. The SHEEO report noted that only three
statewide postsecondary data systems shared data with other states.
Several key challenges that affect interstate data-sharing agreements
are similar to those associated with sharing data across agencies in
the same state, including privacy concerns under FERPA, the lack of
standardization of certain data elements, and coordinating ownership
and allowable uses of the data, as well as other matters, sometimes
referred to generally as governance issues. However, these challenges
can be more complex when they arise across different states rather
than within the same state. Education's current FERPA regulations do
not explicitly address linking data between agencies of different
states, so state officials told us they lack sufficient guidance on
how data can be shared between states in a way that is consistent with
the requirements of FERPA. Further, according to one stakeholder, many
states have their own privacy laws in addition to FERPA, and this can
create additional challenges for sharing data across states.
Nonetheless, several national postsecondary education organizations
have indicated that interstate data exchanges could be handled
consistent with the requirements of FERPA if certain guidelines are
followed, such as having state legislatures specifically authorize
state agencies to create the exchanges. A second challenge is the lack
of standard data elements among states that may use a different coding
system: Even when a state's own agencies have agreed on what data to
share with each other and how to standardize the coding, those same
kinds of issues must be resolved again by agencies sharing data across
states. Another challenge to sharing data across states involves
governance issues such as who owns the data, who has the right to use
them, and how data quality is managed and assured.
Washington's approach to complying with FERPA--in seeking information
on the employment of college graduates that had moved to a neighboring
state, Oregon--entailed close supervision of the data and data-linking
process. To maintain complete control over the student records and
matching process, a staff member from one of the educational
authorities in Washington will drive to the Oregon Employment Security
Department and personally oversee the match and deliver the data back
to the Washington board, according to a Washington state board
official. The official said that the current agreement would comply
with FERPA requirements. The official also noted that Washington will
no longer obtain data from Idaho and Montana, as it had through
separate agreements in the past, because it would take too much time
to drive to those locations to conduct the match and the current
procedure requires personal oversight of the matching process.
Using a Third Party to Help Expand Interstate Data Sharing:
A second potential approach for expanding data collection may be to
have third parties help, by coordinating interstate data sharing, or
by warehousing the relevant data from institutions or states. This
involves having states select one or more unrelated entities to serve
various functions such as facilitating data-sharing agreements and
analyzing or warehousing data. Similar to the first approach, this
approach allows states to follow students across state lines and
analyze outcomes at student and institution levels; however, it also
presents FERPA and other challenges.[Footnote 23] In 2007, Kentucky,
Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia used the National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems, a private nonprofit organization, to
facilitate a data exchange designed to help the states examine
postsecondary student mobility across their borders.[Footnote 24]
Serving as a third party "broker," the center created exchange
agreements with each state individually to resolve governance issues
such as how the data would be shared and used. The states also used an
independent "administrator" that received data from each state,
matched data across states, and constructed database tables based on
the designated data elements. A third party, according to officials
from the center, can also develop standard data-sharing methodology
that can be applied to multiple states.
Another example of using a third party approach for sharing data is
Labor's Wage Record Interchange System (WRIS). The WRIS facilitates
the exchange of wage data among participating states for the purpose
of assessing and reporting on employment and training under the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998, among other purposes. States
voluntarily participate in the WRIS, which acts like a third party by
using the WRIS Clearinghouse to exchange wage data. According to Labor
officials, the WRIS permits state workforce agencies to obtain wage
data of individuals who have participated in workforce investment
programs in one state, then subsequently taken a job in another. By
participating in the WRIS, states can have a more robust picture of
the effectiveness of their workforce investment programs, and are able
to report more comprehensive outcomes against their performance
measures, according to Labor documentation.[Footnote 25]
In addition to performing these coordination and administrative
functions, a third party could serve as a warehouse, maintaining all
or some of the data content submitted by other databases, such as
those maintained by state agencies' SUR databases or postsecondary
institutions. Stakeholders suggested, for example, that the National
Student Clearinghouse, a nonprofit institution that verifies student
enrollment and other records on behalf of postsecondary institutions,
could serve as a third party warehouse of a system that would expand
current collection efforts.[Footnote 26] The Clearinghouse maintains
enrollment data on over 92 percent of all postsecondary students,
obtained directly from institutions, including public, private, and
proprietary institutions, according to Clearinghouse officials.
However, these data would still need to be linked to state department
of labor wage records in order to furnish employment information on
graduates. Clearinghouse representatives responded to this idea by
emphasizing that all the parties, including the postsecondary
institutions themselves, would have to agree to the arrangement, since
local postsecondary institutions own any data that would be provided
to the Clearinghouse.
One challenge associated with the third party approach that some
officials raised is how to pay for the third party, in addition to
some of the same challenges with the state-to-state approach,
including FERPA compliance and governance challenges, like data
ownership. Recent data-sharing discussions among Hawaii, Idaho,
Oregon, and Washington highlight governance issues in the third party
context. Those states have initiated an effort to develop a
"prototype" multistate data exchange to follow students from K-12
through employment, according to an official from the third party
coordinating the effort, the Western Interstate Commission for Higher
Education.[Footnote 27] In addition to data ownership, use, and
quality, those states have discussed other governance challenges:
* How would the data system be organized (e.g., would the data reside
with a third party)?
* How can the states establish a governance board in a cost-effective
way, who should sit that board, what kind of authority for that board
is needed (such as individual state legislation), and what kind of
agreements are needed?
* How can the parties be motivated to continue working together,
particularly in the event the shared data make some states appear
better than others?
Likewise, states would have to resolve how to analyze results once the
data system is in place. The commission's report on this data exchange
effort highlighted the magnitude of governance challenges, noting that
the time and effort needed to establish governance rules for data
exchange systems generally will likely be significantly greater than
the time and effort needed to actually match the data from one state's
database to another.
Expanding National Surveys That Track Postsecondary Education Outcomes:
A third potential approach for collecting more employment-related data
on a larger number of postsecondary graduates is to expand existing
national surveys.[Footnote 28] Several federal agencies and private
organizations conduct national surveys to gather information on
numerous education and workforce topics, including graduates'
postsecondary education, employment, and other life experiences. (See
appendix III for examples of relevant national surveys that collect
information on postsecondary students and graduates.) For instance,
Education's Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study surveys a
sample of graduating seniors to examine students' education and work
experiences after they complete a bachelor's degree. That study
gathers information on students' undergraduate experience and
demographic background and follows groups of students over time to
look at their workforce participation, income, and participation in
graduate school programs, among other indicators. The study is
designed to answer questions such as the following:
* Ten years after college, what percentage of graduates work full-time
at one job?
* What percentage of recent graduates view their job as the start of a
career?
* What is the unemployment rate among college graduates 1 year after
graduation?
[Side bar:
National Data Collection Approach Taken by Australia and the United
Kingdom:
In Australia, the primary mechanism to obtain employment outcome
information on recent graduates of the country‘s 4-year universities
and vocational education sector is a survey of all such graduates,
according to Australian officials. Universities administer the survey
4 months after graduation, and information collected includes:
* education (e.g., institution attended, degree earned, and major
field of study),
* satisfaction with the quality of graduates‘ educational experience,
and,
* employment (e.g., employment status, job type, relation to course of
study, and annual salary).
Similarly, the United Kingdom obtains outcome information from
graduates of universities on whether they are employed, are taking
part in further study, or are not available for employment; the type
of industry they are working in; and their salary. See appendix IV for
details of the information collected in these two countries. End of
side bar]
Additionally, officials we interviewed at one university mentioned
that one private survey, conducted by the National Association of
Colleges and Employers, already provides information on average
salaries of recent graduates and has information categorized by major
and institution.[Footnote 29] One major advantage of surveys is that
because students themselves provide the information, FERPA compliance
is not an issue. However, existing surveys have limitations. For
example, surveys that are able to bridge postsecondary education and
employment, like the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study, are
compiled infrequently: That study has followed groups of students who
graduated in 1993 and 2000, and data collection is under way for a
third group of 2008 graduates. Further, the Baccalaureate and Beyond
Longitudinal Study is representative for graduating seniors nationally
and across all majors, but is not representative of any given state or
institution, precluding analyses at those levels.[Footnote 30] A few
stakeholders also said that because surveys rely on self-reported
information, they might be less reliable than other data sources.
Other stakeholders noted that surveys sometimes have low response
rates, and results might have significant lag time between data
collection and data publication, and incur costs each time a survey is
administered. (See table 2 for a summary of the various approaches.)
Table 2: Description of Selected Possible Approaches to Expand the
Collection of Graduates' Employment Information:
Possible approach: State-to-state data-sharing agreements: link one or
more states' individual SUR data to other states' data;
Benefits of approach:
* Follows individual students across state lines, expanding the data
states have on graduates' employment;
* Builds on state systems already in place;
* Makes data available at student, institution, and state levels,
allowing for more detailed analyses;
* Allows for flexibility and low initial cost;
Challenges:
* Compliance with FERPA and differing individual state privacy laws
across states;
* Lack of standardization of data elements across states;
* Coordination of governance structure, such as who controls the data
and analyses;
* Limited to states with SUR data systems that link graduates'
education and employment data;
* Limited institutional coverage of many SURs with respect to private
and proprietary institutions;
* Paying for states to create and follow these agreements;
Example of approach: Washington state has a data-sharing agreement
with Oregon to obtain employment data on its graduates.
Possible approach: Third party intermediary: states use third parties
to coordinate data sharing, linking, or housing graduates' employment
data;
Benefits of approach:
* Follows individual students across state lines, expanding the data
states have on graduates' employment;
* Facilitates coordination of state agreements and analysis of data,
according to some stakeholders;
* Builds on state systems already in place;
* Makes data available at student, institution, and state levels,
allowing for more detailed analyses;
* Could increase breadth of student information through use of the
National Student Clearinghouse, according to some stakeholders;
Challenges:
* Compliance with FERPA and differing individual state privacy laws
across states and with a third party;
* Coordination of governance structure, including who the third party
will be, in addition to other governance issues;
* Lack of standardization of data elements across states;
* Limited to states with SUR data systems that link graduates'
education and employment data;
* Paying for the third party assistance;
* If using the Clearinghouse, might need postsecondary institutions'
permission to use the data;
Example of approach: Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia used
a third party to help create postsecondary data sharing agreements
among the four states, and to analyze the data.
Possible approach: Expand existing national education-related surveys;
Benefits of approach:
* Provides information to policymakers to guide education and
workforce policy;
* Eliminates FERPA issue, since respondents themselves voluntarily
provide information;
* Could provide more information than could be obtained using only the
UI wage records linked to SUR data, because UI wage records generally
contain only whether a person is employed, the salary, employer name,
and industry of employment;
Challenges:
* Low response rate and time delay between conducting survey and
survey results can affect ability to capture current trends of overall
population or generalize findings to all postsecondary graduates;
* Self-reported data may be less reliable than linked SUR and UI
information;
* Paying for the survey, which incurs costs every time it is
administered;
* May not be representative at state or institution level, precluding
analyses at that level;
Example of approach: Other countries, specifically Australia and the
United Kingdom, use surveys as a main source of their postsecondary
graduates' employment information.
Source: GAO interviews.
[End of table]
States and Schools Collaborate with Employers in Several Ways to Align
Education and Workforce Needs:
State and local workforce officials and postsecondary school
representatives we interviewed said they collaborate with employers in
various ways to keep abreast of workforce needs. At the state and
local levels, these partnerships were generally facilitated through
workforce investment boards established under the Workforce Investment
Act of 1998,[Footnote 31] or in some cases by the state's department
of labor, though other means were also used to cultivate ties with
employers.
Workforce officials in some states said that local workforce
investment boards use the state workforce agency's labor market
analysis to project high-growth occupations by industry in order to
align education and training programs with employers' anticipated
needs. For example, Michigan's No Worker Left Behind initiative uses
labor market information to identify occupations that are in demand
and will fund training only for those occupations. The state's 25
local workforce investment boards then work with the business sector
and postsecondary schools to help equip workers with skills required
for those occupations. Similarly, Connecticut's Department of Labor
uses labor market information to project occupational needs in the
state and develops a profile for each industry. Local workforce
investment areas then use this information to plan their education and
training programs, some of which are delivered by community colleges.
[Footnote 32]
To promote partnerships with industry, Florida set up steering
committees guided by local chamber of commerce and business leaders
and embedded 13 centers--known as Banner Centers--at selected
postsecondary institutions to promote coordination among local
economic developers, employers, and schools. In Washington, the state
workforce investment board, in conjunction with the state board
representing public and private postsecondary schools, conducts an
assessment every 2 years of the education and training credentials
required to meet employer demand. The 2009 assessment showed that the
largest gaps between supply and demand were in engineering, computer
science, and the medical professions. It noted that the education
system will need to expand in these fields to meet employer demand as
would the number of students who are interested in and prepared for
pursuing careers in these fields. Washington plans to survey employers
as part of all subsequent assessments. In North Dakota, the oil and
gas industry collaborated with the state workforce development office
to assess the industry's workforce needs in light of a projected
shortage of qualified workers in the state's labor pool. The
industry's trade association partnered with the state to help identify
skills needed--such as well drilling--and the state college designed a
program around those skills. Another state college created a power
plant technology program in response to industry demand for qualified
power plant operators and hired one of the employer's retirees to head
up the program, given his substantial experience in the industry. In
turn, the industry contributed funding and equipment, such as
simulators, for the classroom. North Dakota plans to conduct similar
assessments for other industries, such as information technology and
manufacturing, to help ensure that employers have access to a skilled
labor pool.
At the school level, the vast majority of the postsecondary schools we
contacted relied on program advisory committees or informal
discussions to obtain employer input in designing or updating academic
programs. Fourteen of the 25 schools also surveyed employers in part
to determine skills sought and satisfaction with recently hired
graduates. Such collaboration often occurred at community colleges and
for-profit vocational schools, given their focus on career and
technical training, compared with 4-year schools whose stated mission
is to provide a broad, comprehensive education. Nevertheless,
officials from one 4-year university in Colorado said that certain
programs, such as engineering, used advisory boards to inform program
design, while at another university, in Washington, all of its degree
programs had advisory boards to ensure classes were relevant to
employer needs.
* Advisory committees. Twenty-one of 25 postsecondary schools we
contacted reported using advisory committees, which include business
and industry leaders, to plan and develop their programs and
curricula.[Footnote 33] A 4-year public school in Michigan has an
employer advisory board consisting of 15 major corporations that
advise the entire school and not just individual academic departments.
At a private, nonprofit technical school in Washington, there is an
advisory committee for each program that drives the curriculum for
that program. On the basis of employer input, for example, the school
discontinued its auto body program because of a lack of sufficient job
opportunities and began networking with potential new employers. A for-
profit school in Michigan meets with its advisory committees each
year, in part to ensure that technology being used in the classroom is
up to date.
* Informal communication. Twelve of the 25 schools we contacted said
they cultivated ties with employers through informal communication.
Schools maintained open lines of communication, for example, through
luncheons with local business leaders to solicit feedback on the
school and its graduates. The faculty of one community college in
Indiana has built individual relationships with local businesses and
meets directly with them. Fostering close relationships with employers
enabled the faculty to incorporate employer needs into the classroom
while helping students understand how classroom learning can be
applied to the work world. In addition, several employers we spoke
with said they had a good working relationship with schools, enabling
them to provide school administrators with informal feedback on the
quality of graduates they hired and whether the curriculum needed to
be adjusted to meet employer needs.
* Employer and graduate surveys. Surveying employers was a commonly
used method among schools to determine what skills employers sought
and employers' perception of how adequately recently hired graduates
were prepared. In Indiana, a for-profit school surveyed its graduates
to gauge how satisfied they were with the guidance they had received
in preparing for and obtaining employment, while a community college
surveyed graduates on how beneficial their coursework had been in
helping them prepare to enter the job market. A community college in
Indiana developed a workplace readiness certificate after survey
results showed that employers' biggest demand was that graduates
possess soft skills--the nontechnical skills and traits needed to
function in a job, such as punctuality, teamwork, and work ethic. A
for-profit school also in Indiana said it offers remedial training for
graduates if employers are dissatisfied with their skills.
Some community college officials said that once employer input is
obtained, the colleges can adjust their curricula and add new training
or degree programs very quickly (e.g., anywhere from under 2 months to
1 year) to respond to employer needs. For example, officials at a
community college in Indiana said they developed a new industrial
technology program that met employers' needs for courses in advanced
manufacturing. In contrast, officials at a 4-year school said that
faculty, particularly if they are tenured, can be resistant to
changing their program because their focus is on teaching rather than
on the quality of jobs their graduates obtain.
[Side bar:
School and Employer Partnerships in Australia and the United Kingdom:
One university in Australia that offers vocational education
categorizes its courses according to the specific industry. It then
seeks input from industry representatives to inform the programs and
to keep apprised of emerging skill needs. Another university obtains
employer feedback on the curriculum and faculty of its biomedical and
science programs, and also surveys employers on the quality of
university graduates hired. An administrator at a university in the
United Kingdom told us that 6-8 employers serve as members of the
school‘s governing committee, and as many as 120 employers participate
in an employer group that advises the school‘s career services office.
The university also surveys employers and uses other means to gauge
their satisfaction with graduates hired. End of side bar]
Conclusions:
In an era of increasing focus on educational accountability and on
U.S. competitiveness in a global economy, there are many merits to
collecting employment data on postsecondary graduates and expanding on
existing state data collection efforts. For example, collecting
employment information on students that moved out of state could help
close a knowledge gap when they obtain employment in another state.
Some state officials and subject matter experts agree that such
enhanced information could provide a more comprehensive picture,
across states, of what happens to graduates when they enter the
workforce, shedding light on the outcomes of education programs. A
system that provides detailed information on the percentage of a
school's graduates that land jobs, average starting salary, and
whether they are employed in another state could also raise consumer
awareness about education and employment outcomes, as long as this
information is made public, for example, by posting the information on
the state's or school's Web site. Just over half of the states collect
employment information on their postsecondary graduates, and while
there could be significant advantages in expanding current data
collection efforts, there are also several inherent challenges in
doing so. In particular, many states are unsure about how to collect
and share the information while still protecting student privacy under
FERPA. Education is planning to take several steps to clarify FERPA
guidance and provide technical assistance. These are positive steps
toward improving guidance, but it is not clear when the guidance will
be available and whether it will specifically address states' concerns
regarding how to develop or broaden their existing data collection
systems in accordance with FERPA. Developing such guidance is
important to addressing ongoing confusion and is particularly needed
in view of federal grants that require states to specify how they will
link their education and employment systems. Until such guidance is in
place, the full potential of collecting longitudinal data within and
across multiple states, while still ensuring necessary privacy
protections, cannot be realized.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To help address states' information needs, we recommend that the
Secretary of Education develop and disseminate guidance that clarifies
the means by which state education agencies can share student records
to facilitate obtaining graduates' employment information while
ensuring appropriate privacy protection under FERPA. In addition to
establishing a time frame for implementation, this guidance should
include how student records could be shared with state labor agencies,
and how states can share data with one another.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to officials at the Departments of
Labor and Education for their review and comment. Labor had no
comments. Education provided a response, which is included as appendix
V of this report, and technical comments, which we incorporated as
appropriate. In its comments, Education agreed with our recommendation
and noted that it has started several initiatives that are in various
stages of action. Specifically, Education intends to propose
amendments to FERPA regulations to clarify what is permissible under
FERPA. According to Education, these amendments, if adopted, would
clarify how states can effectively develop and use data in statewide
longitudinal data systems while ensuring protection of individual
privacy under FERPA. Education also stated it was creating a Chief
Privacy Officer position and establishing a Privacy Technical
Assistance Center to serve as a one-stop shop for state educational
agencies and others for questions related to protecting privacy,
confidentiality, and data security. In addition, Education is planning
to release a new series of technical briefs on various issues related
to the protection of personally identifiable information in student
education records.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Education
and Labor, as well as to relevant congressional committees. In
addition, this report will also be available at no charge on GAO's Web
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/]. Contact points for our
Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix VI.
Signed by:
Katherine M. Iritani:
Acting Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To address the objectives of this study, we used a variety of methods.
Our overall approach included a review of relevant federal laws,
literature, studies, and reports, as well as interviews with state
education and workforce agency officials, representatives at all types
of postsecondary education institutions (i.e., vocational, 2-year, and
4-year schools that were either public, private not-for-profit, or
private for-profit), employers, and database and postsecondary
education experts. To provide an international context for our work,
we reviewed relevant reports and studies and obtained recommendations
from postsecondary education experts to identify countries that
collect significant information on postsecondary students and that may
have strong workforce development programs in place. We judgmentally
selected seven states and two countries--Australia and the United
Kingdom--where we spoke with officials from relevant education and
workforce agencies, as well as postsecondary institutions, to help us
understand their methods of data collection and workforce development
planning. In conducting our review of states and other countries, we
did not conduct independent reviews of their laws, but rather relied
on statements attributable to government officials from those states
and countries and reliable secondary sources, such as selected
researchers, subject matter experts, and employers. We also contacted
two accrediting bodies for their perspectives on our work.
To identify the extent to which and for what purposes states collect
employment-related information on postsecondary graduates, we
identified a sample of seven states for site visits and telephone
interviews and, within these states, interviewed state education and
labor officials to determine what information is available on the
employment outcomes of college graduates and how states are capturing
this information. We also met with selected postsecondary education
institutions to discuss the types of outcome data they report to the
state, any additional outcome information they collect for internal
purposes, and the methods used to collect such information.
Additionally, we asked state officials, postsecondary institution
representatives, and other subject matter experts about how states and
institutions collect graduates' employment outcome information, any
barriers or challenges they face in doing so, how this information is
displayed, and for what purposes the information is used.
To select our sample of states for review, we primarily relied on
recommendations from postsecondary education experts and information
from an external report published in 2007 by the Lumina Foundation
entitled Critical Connections: Linking States' Unit Record Systems to
Track Student Progress.[Footnote 34] This report is based on the
results of a 50-state survey completed in 2006 by the National Center
for Higher Education Management Systems that identifies the states
that have postsecondary student unit record databases, the ability of
these databases to link to employment-related data systems such as
states' unemployment insurance wage records, and other data sources
such as military records, federal employment data, and department of
social services data, that provide employment outcome information. On
the basis of a review of the Lumina Foundation report's state survey
results, we grouped the states into the following four categories
according to their data system capabilities:
(1) Advanced data capabilities. States in this category had an
operational student unit record data system for postsecondary
students, experience linking student data to unemployment insurance
wage records, and experience linking student data to additional
sources that provide employment outcome information.
(2) Emerging data capabilities. States in this category had an
operational student unit record data system for postsecondary students
and experience linking student data to unemployment insurance wage
records, but did not have experience linking student data to other
additional sources that provide employment outcome information.
(3) Minimal capability. States in this category had an operational
student unit record data system for postsecondary students, but did
not have experience linking to unemployment insurance wage records or
other sources that provide employment outcome information.
(4) No capabilities. States in this category did not have an
operational student unit record data system.
In selecting our sample of states, we also considered additional
database functionality (such as including data from private and
proprietary institutions), state participation in a regional data
sharing agreement, and geographic and demographic diversity (e.g.,
rural, urban, and makeup of student population). On the basis of these
considerations, we judgmentally selected seven states with a range of
capabilities for in-depth review: Colorado, Connecticut, Florida,
Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Washington. We used the
information gathered from these states for illustrative purposes only,
and that information is not generalizable to a larger group of states,
including a group of states with similar database capabilities or
attributes. Additionally, while we asked states about what they did to
validate the data they collect on students, we did not use data
collected by states to substantiate any of our findings. We
supplemented this information with findings from the July 2010 report
by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), Strong
Foundations: The State of State Postsecondary Data Systems, which
updated and expanded similar information in the 2007 Lumina report.
[Footnote 35] We corroborated the SHEEO report findings for the seven
states we selected for in-depth review. However, we did not
corroborate the findings for any other state.
To describe the potential approaches and challenges to expanding the
collection of graduates' employment information, we interviewed state
officials and subject matter experts. In conjunction with those
stakeholders, we identified a number of nationally administered
surveys, including surveys administered by federal agencies such as
the U.S. Department of Education, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the
National Science Foundation, and others. We examined the extent to
which these surveys include education and employment information and
whether they could be expanded to collect certain outcome information
on graduates. In addition, we analyzed the Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act. We did not examine whether these potential approaches
are consistent with all requirements of FERPA, because such a review
was beyond the scope of our work.
To identify how selected states and postsecondary institutions
collaborate with employers and use graduates' employment-related
information to align education and workforce needs, we relied on our
state site visits and interviews with expert stakeholders. Because the
Workforce Investment Act is the primary vehicle for delivering
federally funded employment and training services, we also reviewed
relevant information and provisions of that act. In addition, we
reviewed prior GAO work on community colleges and workforce
development to understand coordinated efforts between postsecondary
education and workforce systems to meet employers' needs. Within the
selected states, we interviewed state education and labor officials,
representatives from 25 postsecondary institutions, and 16 employers.
We asked these stakeholders how, if at all, state and local
governments identified workforce needs and developed partnerships
between employers and postsecondary institutions to meet those needs.
Our meetings with employers and postsecondary institutions also
focused on how local postsecondary institutions have tried to serve
the needs of employers.
Overall, we conducted this performance audit from July 2009 to
September 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Selected Characteristics of States' Postsecondary Student
Unit Record Data Systems:
State: Alabama;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: Alaska;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Arizona;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: Arkansas;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: California;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Colorado;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: Connecticut;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: Delaware;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: No;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: N/A;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: N/A;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: N/A;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: N/A;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: N/A.
State: District of Columbia;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: Florida;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Georgia;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Hawaii;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: Idaho;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: No;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: N/A;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: N/A;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: N/A;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: N/A;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: N/A.
State: Illinois;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: Indiana;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Iowa;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: No;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: N/A;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: N/A;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: N/A;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: N/A;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: N/A.
State: Kansas;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: Yes;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Kentucky;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Louisiana;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: Maine;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes ;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: No;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Maryland;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Massachusetts;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: Yes;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: Michigan;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: No;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: N/A;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: N/A;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: N/A;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: N/A;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: N/A.
State: Minnesota;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: Yes;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Mississippi;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: No;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Missouri;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: Yes;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Montana;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Nebraska;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: No;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: N/A;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: N/A;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: N/A;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: N/A;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: N/A.
State: Nevada;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: New Hampshire;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: No;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: N/A;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: N/A;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: N/A;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: N/A;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: N/A.
State: New Jersey;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: New Mexico;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: New York;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: Yes;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: North Carolina;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: North Dakota;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Ohio;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Oklahoma;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Oregon;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Pennsylvania;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: Rhode Island;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: South Carolina;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: Yes;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: South Dakota;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: No;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: Tennessee;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: Texas;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: Yes;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Utah;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Vermont;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: Virginia;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: Yes;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Washington;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: West Virginia;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: Yes.
State: Wisconsin;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
State: Wyoming;
Established postsecondary student unit record database: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 4-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Public, 2-year: Yes;
Institutional coverage: Nonprofit private: No;
Institutional coverage: For-profit proprietary: No;
Links postsecondary student data to workforce data: No.
Source: State profiles from the State Higher Education Executive
Officers (SHEEO) report, Strong Foundations: The State of State
Postsecondary Data Systems, SHEEO (July 2010), and GAO analysis.
Note: N/A stands for Not Applicable, because the state did not have a
postsecondary student unit record database.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Examples of Selected National Surveys of Postsecondary
Education Students:
Name of survey: National Postsecondary Student Aid Study;
Sponsoring entity: Department of Education's National Center for
Education Statistics;
Survey information and analysis: A recurring survey that examines how
students and their families pay for postsecondary education. It
includes nationally representative samples of undergraduate and
graduate students enrolled at all types of postsecondary institutions.
Compiles a comprehensive research dataset, based on student-level
records, on financial aid provided by the federal government, the
states, postsecondary institutions, employers, and private agencies,
along with student demographic and enrollment data.
Name of survey: Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B);
Sponsoring entity: Department of Education's National Center for
Education Statistics;
Survey information and analysis: Examines students' education and work
experiences after they complete a bachelor's degree, with a special
emphasis on the experiences of new elementary and secondary teachers.
Follows several cohorts of graduating seniors over time. The most
recent B&B study, in summer 2009, surveyed more than 17,000 bachelor's
degree recipients from 1,100 U.S. colleges and universities, and
collected information about these graduates' demographic background,
postsecondary education, employment, and other life experiences since
leaving college in 2008. In 2012, the survey will contact the same
graduates to find out about their longer-term experiences.
Name of survey: Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal
Study;
Sponsoring entity: Department of Education's National Center for
Education Statistics;
Survey information and analysis: Captures a national perspective of
persistence, multiple enrollment, transfer, and attainment using
students as the unit of analysis. This survey follows several cohorts
of students who enrolled in postsecondary education for the first
time. The study collects data on student persistence in and completion
of postsecondary education programs, their transition to employment,
demographic characteristics, and changes over time in their goals,
marital status, income, and debt, among other indicators. BPS draws
its initial cohorts from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study
and then they are surveyed through BPS 2 and 5 years after their first
enrollment in postsecondary education.
Name of survey: Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS);
Sponsoring entity: Department of Education's National Center for
Education Statistics;
Survey information and analysis: The study is designed to monitor the
transition of a national sample of young people as they progress from
10th grade through high school and into postsecondary education and/or
their careers. The ELS is a longitudinal study, which means that the
same individuals are surveyed repeatedly over time, and the
information is collected from multiple respondent populations that
represent students, their parents, their teachers, their librarians,
and their schools. As a longitudinal study, ELS 2002 follows a
nationally representative cohort of students from the time they were
high school sophomores through the rest of their high school careers.
By surveying the same young people over time, it is possible to record
the changes taking place in their lives and help to explain these
changes--that is, to help understand the ways in which earlier
achievements, aspirations, and experience influence what happens to
them later.
Name of survey: The National Survey of Recent College Graduates;
Sponsoring entity: National Science Foundation;
Survey information and analysis: Provides information about
individuals who recently obtained bachelor's or master's degrees in a
science, engineering, or health field. Represents individuals who have
recently made the transition from school to the workplace. It also
provides information about individuals attending graduate school. The
survey results are used by educational planners and employers to
understand and predict trends in employment opportunities and salaries
in science, engineering, and health fields for recent graduates and to
evaluate the effectiveness of equal opportunity efforts. The survey
sample is a two-stage sample, in which a sample of institutions is
selected at the first stage and a sample of graduates is selected at
the second stage from lists provided by the sampled institutions.
Name of survey: National Survey of College Graduates;
Sponsoring entity: National Science Foundation;
Survey information and analysis: Longitudinal survey designed to
provide data on the number and characteristics of individuals with
education and/or employment in science, engineering, and related
fields in the United States. The survey provides information on
various characteristics of college-educated individuals in the
workforce such as salaries, whether the college-educated population
was working in their highest degree field of study, specific
occupations, and a gender breakdown of the workforce.
Name of survey: Survey of Earned Doctorates;
Sponsoring entity: National Science Foundation;
Survey information and analysis: Annual survey, begun in 1957-1958,
that collects data continuously on the number and characteristics of
all individuals receiving research doctoral degrees from accredited
U.S. institutions. The results are used to assess characteristics and
trends in doctorate education and degrees. Each accredited U.S.
graduate school is responsible for providing the survey to its
graduates and then submitting completed forms to the survey contractor
for editing and processing.
Name of survey: Salary Survey;
Sponsoring entity: National Association of Colleges and Employers;
Survey information and analysis: Compiles data from career planning
and placement offices of colleges and universities across the United
States. The reports consist of starting salary offers made to new
graduates by employing organizations in business, industry,
government, and nonprofit and educational institutions. The Salary
Survey reports base salary and the number of offers, not acceptances.
It does not distinguish between single and multiple offers to
individual students, and therefore offers cannot be equated with
actual hires.
Source: GAO analysis of surveys administered to students and graduates
on a nationwide basis.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Structure of Postsecondary Education in Australia and
United Kingdom and Data Collection Methods:
Australia:
Postsecondary education structure:
Australia's postsecondary education system is made up of a university
system that is managed and funded primarily at the Commonwealth level,
and a vocational education and training sector that is managed and
funded primarily by state governments.
System size:
The university system includes 39 universities, of which 37 are public
and 2 are private. According to government officials, there are about
4,000 providers of vocational education of various sizes in Australia.
Of these providers, 85 percent of the training is provided through
about 58 public institutions, known as Training and Further Education
(TAFE) institutes, which are funded and operated through the state
governments.
Postsecondary data collection method:
The university and vocational systems each maintain a student
information data system to track students while they are enrolled in
school. According to government officials, all universities and
vocational institutions that receive government funding must collect
data on their students. These data systems, however, do not track
students beyond the point of program completion, and thus provide no
employment outcome information on graduates. To capture employment
outcome information on graduates, each educational system conducts its
own national graduate surveys.
University system:
According to officials we interviewed, the Australian Graduate Survey
is the primary mechanism through which the Australian government
obtains outcome information on university graduates. All of the
universities participate in the survey.
* Each university is responsible for administering the survey to its
graduates 4 months after they complete an undergraduate program, and
the responses are sent to Graduate Careers Australia, a nonprofit
entity, for processing.
* The institutional response rate of 70 percent is desirable and
achievable, but data cannot be disclosed publicly or published if the
response rate falls below 50 percent.
* Education data collected include institution attended, degree
earned, and major field of study, as well as satisfaction with the
quality of graduates' educational experience.
* Employment outcome data collected include employer name, industry of
employment, job title, primary job tasks, annual salary, hours worked
per week, importance of major course of study to the current
employment, and satisfaction with course experience.
Vocational system:
According to government officials, the Student Outcomes Survey is the
primary mechanism through which the Australian government obtains
outcome information on the vocational education and training sector
graduates. This survey is a sample survey conducted annually to assess
the success of the vocational education and training sector in
improving employment outcomes.
* Australia's National Centre for Vocational Education Research
(NCVER) is responsible for administering the survey, which is sent to
graduates 6-9 months after they complete training programs.
* The response rate is about 40 percent.
* Employment outcome data collected include industry of employment,
job title, primary job tasks, salary, relevance of training to current
employment, and overall satisfaction with the training.
* These data are available through the NCVER Vocational Education and
Training Provider Collection (released on an annual basis) and the
NCVER Apprentice and Training Statistics collection (released on a
quarterly and annual basis).
* Employer survey: Every 2 years, the National Centre for Vocational
Education Research uses a contractor to survey a sample of Australian
employers over the phone. This survey helps officials determine why
employers do or do not use the vocational education system.
United Kingdom:
Postsecondary education structure:
The United Kingdom's postsecondary system consists of a higher
education system (universities and colleges similar to those in the
United States) and a further education system (institutes of further
education, similar to community colleges or vocational schools in the
United States), according to officials from the United Kingdom
Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Officials said that
both parts of postsecondary education are primarily federally funded,
though the individual countries (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland,
and Wales), and local areas also have some control over postsecondary
education.
System size:
The higher education system is composed of 165 universities and higher
education colleges. According to the Business Innovation and Skills
officials, there are approximately 430 further education colleges in
the United Kingdom.[Footnote 36]
Postsecondary data collection method:
According to officials from the United Kingdom Department for Business
Innovation and Skills, annual national surveys are conducted of
postsecondary education leavers, as well as an employer satisfaction
survey.
Higher education system:
The United Kingdom's Higher Education Statistics Agency conducts its
Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education survey in two stages.
* In the first stage, every higher education institution surveys all
students 6 months after they graduate. Information is gathered on
their current activity: employed, unemployed, in further study, or
something else/not available for employment. Employment data collected
include graduates' area of employment, occupation, salary, and whether
the education was necessary for the job obtained, and reasons the
student took the job.
* In the second stage, the country's Higher Education Statistics
Agency uses a private contractor to send a survey to a sample of
graduates 3½ years after graduation, and collects similar employment
outcome data. This is not an annual survey; there have been two such
longitudinal surveys, and a third one is under way as of September
2010, according to officials at the Department for Business Innovation
and Skills.
The target response rate for each institution is 80 percent for full-
time students (and 70 percent for part-time).
Further education system:
According to officials from the United Kingdom Department for Business
Innovation and Skills, the United Kingdom surveys all further
education leavers who complete a substantial amount of learning and/or
basic skills programs and asks them about the impact of that
coursework. Officials said that the survey asks, for example, about
whether leavers are continuing their education or have obtained
employment or better employment and whether the course was essential
to that outcome. The surveys are conducted by phone. The results of
the survey can be used to evaluate each institution's performance,
according to officials.
Employer survey:
Employment information is obtained through surveys of university and
college graduates, and the results are publicly available through the
Web sites of the agencies that administer the surveys. The United
Kingdom Commission for Employment and Skills administers the National
Employer Skills Survey, which asks, among other things, employers to
evaluate how well prepared these postsecondary graduates are for their
occupations. Other areas the survey asks employers about include
recruitment difficulties and skill gaps. The results for the 2009
National Employer Skills Survey for England were published in March
2010.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:
United States Department Of Education:
Office Of Planning, Evaluation And Policy Development:
400 Maryland Ave. SW:
WASIUNGTON, DC 20202:
[hyperlink: http://www.ed.gov]
September 10, 2010:
Ms. Katherine M. Iritani:
Acting Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Iritani:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, Postsecondary Education:
Many States Collect Graduates' Employment Information, but Lack of
Clear Guidance on Student Privacy Requirements Could Hinder
Progress (GAO-10-927). The U.S. Department of Education (the
Department) appreciates GAO's efforts to describe the confusion that
States have expressed regarding how to link data
across State agencies while also adhering to the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The Department's response to GAO's
recommendation follows.
Recommendation: To help address states' information needs, we
recommend that the Secretary of Education develop and disseminate
guidance that clarifies the means by which state education agencies
can share student records to facilitate obtaining graduates'
employment information while ensuring appropriate privacy protection
under FERPA. in addition to establishing a timeframe for
implementation, this guidance should include how student records could
be shared with state labor agencies, and how states can share data
with one another.
Response: The Department agrees with this recommendation and has
already taken steps to increase the guidance and technical assistance
it provides to States on protecting student privacy,
confidentiality, and data security in order to promote full awareness
of and compliance with Federal law and best practice. We have
undertaken several initiatives to address this need that are in
accordance with GAO's recommendation. These activities are summarized
below.
The Department intends to propose amendments to the FERPA regulations
that would respond to the frequently heard concerns from States,
districts, and other education data stakeholders. The proposed
regulations will address the lack of clarity around what is
permissible under FERPA and the need to better protect student
information. FERPA is an extremely important law intended to ensure
student privacy is protected. However, the Department's regulations do
not account for the evolution of data use we see today. As announced
in the April 26, 2010. Office of Management and Budget's Unified
Regulatory Agenda, the Department will propose changes
to the regulations that will clarify how to comply with Federal law
and provide guidance for ensuring student data are protected as States
develop longitudinal data systems and use data to inform decisions. To
protect the confidentiality of our decision-making processes and policy
discussions, we are constrained in sharing details of our anticipated
proposed changes to the FERPA regulations. However, please be assured
that the changes we are considering, if adopted, will clarify how
States can effectively develop and use data in Statewide longitudinal
data systems while ensuring protection of individual privacy under
FERPA. We plan to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) this
winter. When the NPRM is published, the Department will consider
public comments to further improve the FERPA regulations and guidance.
We are also creating a Chief Privacy Officer (CPO) position. The CPO
will be tasked with ensuring the Department's compliance with Federal
laws, regulations, and policies related to information privacy,
including implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. and
FERPA. The CPO will be a member of the Senior Executive Service. The
CPO will oversee the Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) and serve
as senior policy advisor on overall privacy policy, including on
regulations and nonregulatory guidance drafted by Department offices
on issues related to or including privacy, confidentiality, and data
security, including the new Privacy Technical Assistance Center (see
below). The Chief Privacy Officer job announcement is posted on
www.usajobs.gov, with applications to be accepted until September 30,
2010.
In addition, through the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES), the Department is establishing a Privacy Technical Assistance
Center (PTAC) to serve as a one-stop shop for State educational
agencies (SEAS), local educational agencies (LEAs), the postsecondary
community, and other parties engaged with education data on questions
related to protecting privacy, confidentiality, and data security. As
States continue to develop their longitudinal data systems, PTA(' will
develop coordinated guidance and communication about privacy,
confidentiality, and security measures by working with various offices
within the Department, including representatives from the Performance
Information Management Service (PIMS), FPCO. the Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), the Office of the
General Counsel (OGC). the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy
Development (OPEPD), and NCES. PTAC will communicate frequently with
education stakeholders about updated knowledge on and changes to
privacy, confidentiality, and security requirements, practices, and
regulations; share lessons learned about privacy protection practices
from other government agencies and other industries; facilitate the
sharing of lessons learned among SEAs, LEAs, and postsecondary
institutions regarding privacy-related matters; provide virtual and
real settings in which user communities can collaborate; provide
technical assistance in group settings and one-on-one with States; and
create training materials on privacy, confidentiality, and security
issues. PTAC will refer any FERF'.A. questions, which cannot be
addressed by existing guidance, to FPCO. FPCO will continue to serve
as the dedicated office to answer FERPA questions and investigate
allegations of violations. The Department anticipates having the
contract for PTAC awarded by the end of September 2010.
The Department, through NCES, will be releasing a new series of
technical briefs on various issues related to the protection of
personally identifiable information in student education records. The
Department will solicit public comments on them and will ultimately
incorporate, where appropriate, those comments into nonregulatory
guidance. Planned brief topics include the following: basic concepts
and definitions of personally identifiable information,
confidentiality, types of disclosures, processes for making personally
identifiable information anonymous in data being released, privacy,
and fair information practice principles; data stewardship, including
the establishment of clear policies and procedures that govern
collection, storage, processing, and access to individual students'
education records; electronic data security related to the
transmission of data with personally identifiable information between
different entities; statistical methods to protect the identity of
individual students in publicly available information; recommended
components of written agreements that permit State and local
educational authorities to redisclose personally identifiable
information from education records to organizations conducting studies
pursuant to the terms of FERPA; and privacy and confidentiality
training needs for relevant staff at the State, district, and school
levels, including disclosure limitation procedures and internal access
rules. NCES will create additional briefs in response to public
requests far guidance on related topics. The briefs will be released
as individual documents for each topic over time, starting fall 2010.
We believe that we must remain vigilant about safeguarding data and
protecting privacy as the reliance on using data to inform decisions
grows and as States expand their longitudinal data systems. The above-
listed initiatives are the first steps in what will be continuous
development and improvement of the technical assistance and guidance
that the Department will provide to ensure that States, districts, and
schools are safeguarding personally identifiable information in data
systems and complying with Federal privacy laws.
Although we agree with GAO's recommendation for executive action,
there are several technical points of clarification needed in the
draft report related to the Department and FERPA. Enclosed is an
addendum outlining these points, which I trust GAO will find useful.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Carmel Martin:
Assistant Secretary:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix VI GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Katherine M. Iritani, Acting Director, (202) 512-7215 or
iritanik@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Meeta Engle, Assistant
Director, and Susan Chin, Analyst-in-Charge, managed all aspects of
the assignment. Jason Holsclaw, Andrew Nelson, Nancy Purvine, and Katy
Trenholme made significant contributions to this report in all aspects
of the work. Kate Van Gelder contributed to writing this report.
Ronald Fecso and Luann Moy provided technical support, and Craig
Winslow provided legal support. Mimi Nguyen developed the graphics for
the report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Career and Technical Education: States Have Broad Flexibility in
Implementing Perkins IV. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-683]. Washington, D.C.: July 29,
2009.
Workforce Development: Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers
Collaborate to Meet 21st Century Workforce Needs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-547]. Washington, D.C.: May 15,
2008.
Workforce Investment Act: State and Local Areas Have Developed
Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-657]. Washington, D.C.:
June 1, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures
to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's Effectiveness. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-275]. Washington, D.C.: February 1,
2002.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Postsecondary education refers to the educational level that
follows the completion of a school providing a secondary education,
such as high school, and is often optional. Undergraduate,
postgraduate, and vocational schools make up the various types of
postsecondary education.
[2] Pub. L. No. 110-315, § 1102, 122 Stat. 3078, 3491-92 (2008).
[3] Peter Ewell and Marianne Boeke, Critical Connections: Linking
States' Unit Record Systems to Track Student Progress, New Agenda
Series, Lumina Foundation for Education, National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems (January 2007).
[4] Tanya I. Garcia and Hans Peter L'Orange, Strong Foundations: The
State of State Postsecondary Data Systems, State Higher Education
Executive Officers (July 2010).
[5] We focused on state rather than federal efforts because the HEOA
provided generally that nothing in the Higher Education Act of 1965
authorizes the U.S. Department of Education to create a federal unit
record system to track individual college students. Sec. 113, § 134,
122 Stat. 3110-11 (codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1015c).
[6] 20 U.S.C. § 1232g.
[7] Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936 (codified in pertinent part as
amended at 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801-2945). In addition, section 504 provided
generally that nothing in the act was to be construed to permit the
development of a national database of personally identifiable
information on individuals receiving benefits under it. 112 Stat. 1245
(codified at 20 U.S.C. § 9274(b)).
[8] In prior reports, we found that there is a 6-to 9-month lag
between the time employers report UI data and states update their UI
wage records. See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-657],
Workforce Investment Act: State and Local Areas Have Developed
Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help
(Washington, D.C.: June 2004), and [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-275], Workforce Investment Act:
Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate
Picture of WIA's Effectiveness (Washington, D.C.: February 2002).
[9] Pub. L. No. 107-279, § 208, 116 Stat. 1940, 1981.
[10] Pub. L. No. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034, 3228.
[11] 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. In addition, the rights under FERPA, including
the right to access student education records, transfer from the
parent to the student when the student becomes an eligible student. An
eligible student is a student who has turned 18 years old or attends a
postsecondary institution at any age.
[12] 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(3).
[13] 34 C.F.R. § 99.33 (b) (2009).
[14] 34 C.F.R. § 99.35(a) (2009). Within certain limitations, a
state's K-12 educational agency that nonconsensually received
personally identifiable information from education records to conduct
an evaluation may nonconsensually redisclose the personally
identifiable information to the state higher education authority. Such
disclosure may be done on behalf of the educational agency that
provided the information, in order for the state higher education
authority to conduct another type of evaluation, as long as that state
higher education authority has authority to conduct the evaluation of
the disclosing districts' federal-or state-supported education
program. There are other exceptions to FERPA's general requirements
that may permit the sharing of information under certain
circumstances. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b).
[15] According to SHEEO, 5 states do not have a SUR database:
Delaware, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, and New Hampshire, and 1 state
(Iowa) had limitations to its data system and enrollment numbers that
precluded it from being included in the SHEEO report. Further, some
states have multiple SUR databases, but for purposes of this report,
we use states rather than individual data systems as the unit of
analysis.
[16] State profiles from the SHEEO report indicated that of the 45
states with postsecondary SUR databases, 42 collect data from both
public 2-and 4-year institutions and the other 3 states collect data
only from public 4-year institutions. Furthermore, 19 states collect
data from independent, nonprofit institutions, and 7 collect data from
for-profit institutions.
[17] 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1)(C) and (F) and (b)(3).
[18] In Florida, this program is created by law and is referred to as
the Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program. The
purpose of the program is to compile, maintain, and disseminate
information concerning the educational histories, placement and
employment, and other measures of success of former participants in
state educational and workforce development programs. Fla. Stat. §
1108.39 (2009).
[19] In connection with other types of statewide longitudinal data
systems, Education has explained that data maintained by a workforce
agency is not an education record, so FERPA does not apply and does
not present a barrier to the disclosure of such data by state
workforce agencies to educational agencies. 74 Fed. Reg. 58,436,
58,452 (Nov 12, 2009).
[20] 73 Fed. Reg. 74,806. Education issued these regulations, in part,
in an attempt to clarify permissible redisclosures by state and
federal officials without consent for audit and evaluation purposes.
73 Fed. Reg. 74,821-22.
[21] Education officials noted that they have not reviewed or endorsed
the potential approaches or the specific examples used to illustrate
how they have been implemented.
[22] A prior GAO report noted the challenges in following the
employment progress of students because of the lack of data sharing
across states. GAO, Career and Technical Education: States Have Broad
Flexibility in Implementing Perkins IV, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-683] (Washington, D.C.: July 29,
2009).
[23] Using a third party administrator can also help states avoid
giving one state access to other states' records. Accessing another
state's records can raise FERPA issues, according to documentation
from the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
However, a third party that has education records, such as a
contractor, must comply with FERPA with regard to any nonconsensual
redisclosures of that information. Education had not issued any
guidance on whether third parties may be utilized to facilitate the
exchange of education records and employment records at the time of
this review.
[24] Tracking Postsecondary Students Across State Lines, National
Center for Higher Education Management Systems, (March 2008).
[25] The WRIS does not allow for the sharing of aggregate wage record
results obtained through WRIS to third party entities, such as state
education agencies. However, a proposal before the WRIS Advisory Group
would allow states to participate in a process to share aggregate wage
record results with education agencies to obtain information on behalf
of workforce and economic development partner public agencies. Labor
officials emphasized that participation by any state in such a process
would be on an entirely voluntary basis.
[26] The National Student Clearinghouse, established by the higher
education community in 1993, serves as a central repository and single
point of contact for the collection and exchange of enrollment,
degree, diploma, and certificate records on behalf of participating
postsecondary and secondary institutions.
[27] Brian T. Prescott and Peter Ewell, A Framework for a Multi-State
Human Capital Development Data System, Western Interstate Commission
for Higher Education, 2009. While state officials met together to
discuss these issues, states had not progressed past this initial
discussion and, as of May 2010, were seeking funds to continue the
work.
[28] We also spoke with a few employers and national associations
representing employers or for-profit institutions about surveying
employers online to obtain information on employer satisfaction with
graduates they hire. They said that they would be willing to complete
this type of survey if it would provide them with benefits such as
access to aggregated information about graduates' institutions of
postsecondary education attended, degrees, or starting pay. However,
one association official stated that access to this information might
not be enough of an incentive to compel employers to complete the
online survey.
[29] The National Association of Colleges and Employers Salary Survey
compiles data from career planning and placement offices of colleges
and universities across the United States. The reports consist of
starting salary offers made to new graduates by employing
organizations in business, industry, and government, and by nonprofit
and educational institutions. The figures reported are for base
salaries only and do not include bonuses, fringe benefits, or overtime
rates. The Salary Survey reports offers, not acceptances. It does not
distinguish between single and multiple offers to individual students
and, consequently, offers reported by the study cannot be equated with
actual hires.
[30] Additionally, the survey may not be representative of all majors
in follow-up surveys.
[31] This 1998 act required, in part, that states and localities unify
federally funded employment and training programs and deliver them
through a single service system known as the one-stop system. §
121(a), 112 Stat. 963 (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 2841). It also required
establishment of business-led state and local workforce investment
boards to assist in the development of state one-stop system plans and
set policy, respectively. §§ 111(a) and 117(a), 112 Stat. 944-46 and
954 (codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 2821 and 2832), respectively.
[32] For more information on how community colleges collaborate with
the workforce investment system to develop career and technical
training programs that meet industry needs, see GAO, Workforce
Development: Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers Collaborate to
Meet 21st Century Workforce Needs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-547] (Washington, D.C.: May 15,
2008).
[33] Secondary and postsecondary career and technical programs
establish and rely on advisory committees to meet requirements under
the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 that
involve parents, faculty, guidance counselors, local business, and
local labor organizations in the planning, development,
implementation, and evaluation of career and technical education
programs in the state. Pub. L. No. 109-270, § 122(c)(5), 120 Stat.
683, 719 (codified at 20 U.S.C. § 2342(c)(5)).
[34] Peter Ewell and Marianne Boeke, Critical Connections: Linking
States' Unit Record Systems to Track Student Progress, New Agenda
Series, Lumina Foundation for Education, National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems (January 2007).
[35] Tanya I. Garcia and Hans Peter L'Orange, Strong Foundations: The
State of State Postsecondary Data Systems, State Higher Education
Executive Officers (July 2010).
[36] According to officials from the Department for Business
Innovation and Skills, approximately 10 percent of higher education is
carried out within further education colleges, and generally overseen
by a higher education institution.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
