|
Appendix
C State-Level
Alumni Surveys Alabama Individual
institutions conduct alumni surveys. Alaska Individual
campuses conduct alumni survey and use the data for
accreditation. Arizona One
of the Report Card indicators focuses on the Arizona University system’s
success, which is measured by surveying Arizona employers, or employers who
interview on campus, regarding their satisfaction with Arizona University
graduates. Some community colleges conduct employer satisfaction surveys of
their graduates. Arkansas When
they had performance funding, the department used ACT’s satisfaction survey for
graduates. But it was very time consuming and expensive, and was dropped after
performance funding was eliminated. California Many
institutions conduct alumni surveys. Colorado The
accountability program requires that institutions provide evidence of
after-graduation performance in employment, professional advancement, or
achievement in graduate/professional school. Institutions are also required to
assess student/alumni satisfaction with their education. Connecticut Individual
institutions conduct alumni surveys, but the state doesn’t yet. There are plans
to update/upgrade their data system that would allow the state to collect these
data. Delaware The
community colleges collect self-report data on graduates’ employment and
transfer status. Florida The Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program (FETPIP) is a data collection system that obtains follow-up data on former students. Social security numbers obtained from postsecondary institutions are linked with employment files. FETPIP gathers data on employment, continuing postsecondary education, military participation, public assistance participation and incarceration data. (It has no out-of-state migration data, however.) These
data have been central in the development of a performance-funding model for the
public universities and community colleges. However, there is only a “small pot”
of money to distribute to universities based on where their graduates go. There
is, however, approximately $720 million in workforce development funds to
distribute to community colleges and vocational-technical schools if their
graduates are working in fields related to their training, particularly in high
skills/high employer demand areas. The purpose of this Workforce Development
Education Fund is to reward productive workforce development
programs. FETPIP
also conducts employer opinion surveys. FETPIP feeds back the results of the
Employer Opinion Survey to the individual institutions that “supplied” the
employees, although FETPIP’s published report aggregates the results to the
level of the academic or training program offered in a particular delivery
system (i.e., SUS or CC system). Georgia There
is no systemwide policy, but most institutions track their graduates. The new
program review policy will most likely result in increased efforts to collect
alumni data. Hawaii The
UH system gathers information regarding student satisfaction with educational
programs and services as well as alumni demographic and employment data,
including long-term satisfaction with educational programs and services from
annual graduating senior and alumni surveys. The surveys of baccalaureate
students specifically ask questions regarding students’ work and/or graduate
school activities. These data are compiled in the University’s annual
Benchmarks/Performance Indicators Report and are disseminated to colleges and
schools, as well as external university constituents. The community colleges
also conduct student follow-up surveys. Idaho Under
federal Carl Perkins regulations, the vocational-technical school system is
required to track their graduates 180 days after graduating to see whether they
are working in the fields for which they were trained, in the military,
unemployed, or not seeking employment. If a program is unproductive (doesn’t
graduate enough students), or if there are no jobs in a particular training
area, that program will be phased out. The Board would like to link their data
with the unemployment insurance system, but that is still in the discussion
stage. Illinois A
baccalaureate follow-up survey is conducted each year by the public
institutions. Surveys are sent to graduating classes one, five and nine years
out, on a rotating schedule. Not every graduating class gets surveyed, and one
class may be surveyed three times. Graduates are asked questions about current
employment, how closely it is related to their major, whether they are pursuing
(or have pursued) additional degrees, and satisfaction with their academic
preparation. Indiana The
Commission conducted a graduate mobility study five years ago when they linked
their data with Department of Motor Vehicles data. They are considering doing
the mobility survey again, since Indiana appears to have low educational
attainment because of significant graduate out-migration. Iowa There
is a new survey of graduates to see where they are employed (in or out of
state), or whether they are in graduate school. These data are used for economic
development planning activities, although they could be used to influence
educational policy. Kansas Individual
institutional alumni associations collect these data, but the Board would like
to develop a P–16 database in the future. Kentucky The
Council is developing a statewide alumni survey because the current one is
administered by individual institutions, using different delivery methods (mail
or phone), and resulting in data that are not uniform. The core questions used
by all institutions concern: 1) satisfaction with instruction, curriculum,
preparation for work, etc.; 2) current enrollment status in postsecondary
education; and 3) employment status and the degree to which job is related to
major. Individual institutions will be able to add their own
questions. Louisiana The
ACT OPINION survey on student satisfaction is used on a statewide basis with
different versions for two- and four-year institutions. The Board also is
fielding two other surveys, one for non-returning students, and one for alumni
outcomes, both of which are produced by ACT. The latter one is a self-report
survey with basic employment questions (e.g., working in field of study, income,
etc.), the impact of school experiences on various academic skills (e.g.,
problem-solving, analytical skills, etc.), and educational experiences (e.g.,
opportunities for involvement in campus activities, satisfaction with
instruction, etc.). The
Board also uses another statewide test, the ACT Counseling for High Skills, with
technical colleges, which asks graduates to assess the quality of a given
institution’s educational/professional program. These data are compiled onto a
CD and sent to high school guidance counselors to use with students interested
in particular programs. The
Louisiana Department of Labor is working with ACT to develop an employer
satisfaction survey for proprietary and technical schools. Additionally,
graduates of two- and four-year institutions and graduate programs are linked
with workforce data to determine whether they are working in the state, at what
jobs, salary, etc. Maine Individual
institutions track their alumni, but there is no systemwide data collection
effort. Maryland Institutions
report to the Commission on two common indicators: admission of undergraduates
to post-baccalaureate study, and employment rates of
graduates. Massachusetts Individual
campuses survey graduates and send the Board aggregate data, such as the
proportion of graduates employed, etc. The community college system uses
common/comparable questions, but the four-year institutions do
not. Michigan All
colleges conduct placement follow-up
surveys to obtain information regarding the number of students who graduated,
how many continued their education, are employed, etc. The Department is
considering linking their database with unemployment insurance data to get
better results. The community colleges collect graduation rates, rates of
further postsecondary education, unemployment/employment rates, etc. to satisfy
federal Perkins requirements. Minnesota Individual
four-year campuses conduct alumni surveys. The community college system no
longer collects these data. Mississippi The
university system does not track its alumni, although individual campuses
do. The
community and junior colleges collect data on community and junior college
students who transfer to the university system, as well as transfer-student
performance versus native-student performance. Since the State Department of
Education allocates Perkins III funds, it tracks students upon completion of a
technical or career program. The Community College Board would like to set up a system to track students from kindergarten through community college attendance and into the university system. They also are trying to link their data with that of the State Employment and Security Division, to track their students into the workforce. Missouri The
two-year system follows up on its graduates 180 days after graduation, for
Perkins III legislation, to determine whether students are working in the fields
for which they were trained. These data are included in the Funding For Results
formula, and institutions can provide supplemental data if they
choose. The two-year and four-year public institutions with professional/technical programs periodically conduct a sample alumni survey using ACT’s “Counseling for High Skills” instrument, which reports students’ perceptions of how well they were trained for their career or field. The
2001 alumni follow-up survey will focus on career success, and is a
retrospective perception of students’ academic preparation. These data will be
part of the quality indicators Missouri is using to assess institutions’
effectiveness. After the 2001 survey, the Board will survey currently enrolled students regarding their satisfaction with instruction and academic programs. Montana Only
completion data are collected at the campus level. Nebraska The
Commission currently does not track graduates, although it is exploring the
possibility of working with the Labor Department to track students in the
workforce after graduation. Individual community colleges track their
graduates. Nevada Individual
institutions track their graduates. New
Hampshire The
Commission does not collect data on alumni. The
community and technical college system has been tracking their graduates for
years to determine whether they are working full- or part-time, and to collect
salary data. The results are used in a mandated annual report to their board and
the governor. New
Jersey Surveys
are done by institutions, but not at the system or state level. A workforce
initiative (WIA) tracks job placement, salary and
retention. New
Mexico All
the four-year institutions conduct alumni surveys which have a core of common
questions, but this is not coordinated by the Commission. The
community colleges are working with the labor department to link their data with
the unemployment insurance system, to track their
graduates. New
York The
Department does not track graduates, but individual institutions do. The State
Education Department has discussed this, but its advisory group is concerned
with the validity of the results obtained from these types of surveys (due to
potential non-response bias), and by the fact that such surveys generally are
not cost-effective. Perkins III requires federally funded two-year vocational
institutions to track their graduates. These institutions have tried doing this
by linking with the state employment data, but have not been satisfied with the
quality of the data. SUNY
system administration conducts an alumni survey every three
years. CUNY’s two-year programs track completers per Perkins III requirements. Additionally, CUNY plans to survey four-year graduates regarding their employment status or enrollment in further postsecondary education. Beginning in fall 2000, CUNY will implement an annual systemwide survey of graduates of associate and baccalaureate programs. The survey will ascertain rates of placement in jobs and enrollment in additional degree programs. North
Carolina Every two years UNC surveys graduating seniors regarding how well prepared they feel they are for employment and/or graduate school. The data are used as baseline evidence of institutional improvement, and are fed back to all institutions (and all institutions receive everyone’s data with student ID numbers stripped, in order to make comparisons). Staff from the UNC system office visit one campus a month, and spend the day reviewing the institution’s data results with department heads, deans, faculty, students, financial-aid, registrar, library, information technology, career/academic advising, assessment office and the chancellor. These conversations set the stage for establishing performance budgeting objectives and identifying problem areas, and provide a forum for making a public commitment to improve. UNC is working on posting the data on the Web so that it is easily accessible, especially for department chairs. The data also are integrated with enrollment planning and accountability initiatives. The NCBCC plans to assess employer satisfaction with a centrally administered survey, to determine general satisfaction with specific community colleges’ success in meeting employer needs for training and job preparation. Satisfaction with customized training programs also will be assessed. To reduce the burden on employers and increase the response rate, the system office will develop categories of employers, and will survey approximately one-third of all employers each year. North
Dakota The
system follows up on its graduates with assistance from Follow-Up Information on
North Dakota Education and Training (FINDET), a consortium of several state
agencies. As part of the new accountability effort, the system also is
considering assessing both graduate and employer
satisfaction. Ohio OBR
currently is working on linking its student tracking system with the Ohio Bureau
of Employment Services, to track outcomes. As part of its student success indicator, OACC will survey students in technical/career programs after graduating, to determine whether they are employed in the fields for which they were trained. Oklahoma An
annual employment survey is conducted by linking Oklahoma system records with
state employment records, to track what proportion of graduates are employed in
which industries. These data are used in program review (done every five years),
and programs with low enrollment and degree production rates are reviewed yearly
to determine whether they should be phased out. Additionally, requests for new
programs are required to use these data to justify the need for a new
program. Oregon The
Board collects data on employment, further education, personal income,
satisfaction with education, etc., for graduates one and five to ten years after
graduation. Bachelor’s graduates and advanced degree recipients are surveyed
separately. The Board is in the planning phase of developing a survey of
employers. Pennsylvania There
is no statewide survey of graduates; individual institutions do
this. Rhode
Island There
is no state-level data collection effort, but some institutions survey their
graduates. South
Carolina There
is no statewide survey of alumni, but institutions are required to follow up on
their graduates and include these data in their annual assessment
report. South
Dakota Along
with other state agencies, the university system participates in the South
Dakota Follow-Up Program managed by the Department of Labor. The Board provides
information on graduates for each fiscal year, and on enrollments as of October.
The DOL tracks graduates using unemployment, federal sources and driver
licenses, and collects data on wages and benefits by surveying South Dakota
employers. Tennessee Institutions
survey either alumni or currently enrolled students in alternating years using
the ACT Student Opinion Survey (there is one version for universities and one
for two-year institutions) or the ACT Alumni Survey. The former assesses
enrolled students’ perceptions of the institution’s programs, services and
environment, while the latter compiles employment history and students’
perceptions of the impact of their educational programs and experiences.
Currently enrolled student surveys can use representative samples, but the
alumni survey must be administered to an entire year of graduates. The first
year of either survey serves as the baseline for subsequent
years. Two-year institutions must survey their graduates each year to determine the number placed. Texas Public
community and technical colleges and four-year institutions that award associate
degrees are required by Perkins III to document post-exit results achieved by
“completers” and “leavers.” The Coordinating Board contracts with the Texas
State Occupational Information Coordinating Council (SOICC) to accomplish this.
SOICC receives an extract of exit cohort students’ records and links it with a
variety of state databases such as unemployment insurance, wage, vital
statistics, civil service, state prison and Department of Human Services
records. These data also are linked back to the state master enrollment list for
the subsequent fall term. Participation in SOICC’s student tracking program is
not required for public universities and four-year institutions that do not
offer associate degrees, health sciences institutions, proprietary and private
four-year colleges and universities. However, because several large public
universities participate (notably the University of Texas and Texas A&M
systems), approximately 75 percent of all of Texas’ postsecondary completers and
leavers are included in the state’s automated student and adult learner
follow-up. Utah The
Board does not currently survey its graduates, but is pursuing a joint venture
with the Department of Workforce Services to link their databases. Some data may
be available in the next year. Vermont Individual
institutions may survey their graduates. Virginia The
Council currently is discussing statewide graduate surveys. Individual
institutions survey their alumni. Washington HECB
is considering conducting a graduate outcomes study. SBCTC follows their students into the workforce and/or further education, and collects data on employment status and wages. West
Virginia The
state collects data on whether graduates are working (in-state or out of state)
or going to school, and average income. Data are reported in the aggregate (not
broken down by institution) in the Report Card. Additionally, institutions
conduct an undergraduate satisfaction survey. Wisconsin The
UW system surveys its graduates. Wyoming Six
months after graduation, two-year graduates are surveyed to see whether they are
working, what their income is, and their level of satisfaction with student
services, as well as self-reported gains in areas like communication and
computer literacy. These data are used in institutional strategic plans and
reports. (The governor issued an executive order requiring all state agencies to
develop strategic plans and report annually on
outcomes.) About the
Authors
Peter
Ewell is a
Senior Associate at the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems
(NCHEMS), where he has been a member of the staff since 1981. Dr. Ewell’s work
focuses on assessing institutional effectiveness and the outcomes of college,
and involves both research and direct consulting with institutions and state
systems on collecting and using assessment information in planning, evaluation
and budgeting. He has directed several multi-institutional demonstration
projects on this topic, and has consulted with more than 250 colleges and
universities and 22 state systems of higher education. Dr.
Ewell has authored six books and numerous articles on the topic of improving
undergraduate instruction through the assessment of student outcomes. In
addition, he has prepared commissioned papers for many agencies, and has spoken
widely at both national and international conferences. Paula
Ries
has been a NCHEMS staff member since January 1995. Before joining NCHEMS Paula
was the project director of the National Research Council’s (NRC) Survey of
Earned Doctorates, a national census of research doctorates sponsored by the
National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the National
Endowment for the Humanities, the U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Prior to her work with the NRC, Paula was a research
analyst at UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute. National Center for
Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) The
mission of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS)
is to help institutions and agencies of higher education improve their
management capability. Through its 30 years of service to higher education,
NCHEMS has been committed to bridging the gap between research and practice, by
placing the latest management concepts and tools in the hands of college and
university administrators. NCHEMS was founded in 1969 as a program within the
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). Subsequently, NCHEMS
became a private nonprofit organization in its own right, preeminent as a
national center both conducting and translating research to meet the needs of
practicing administrators.
National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
The National Center for Public
Policy and Higher Education works to strengthen America’s future by increasing
opportunity and achievement for all who aspire to higher education. As an
independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, the National Center promotes
public policies that enhance Americans’ opportunities to pursue and achieve
high-quality education and training beyond high school. Formed in 1998, the
National Center is not affiliated with any institution of higher education, with
any political party, or with any government agency. It is supported by a
consortium of national foundations that includes The Pew Charitable Trusts and
The Ford Foundation.
The National Center publishes: «
Reports and analyses commissioned by the National Center,
«
Reports and analyses written by National Center staff,
« National Center Policy Reports that are
approved for release by the National Center’s Board of Directors, and
« CrossTalk, a quarterly publication.
All National Center publications are available at
www.highereducation.org. Single copies of most of these publications are also
available from the San Jose office of the National Center. Please FAX requests
to 408-271-2697 and ask for the report by publication number. Measuring Up 2000 is available by
calling 888-269-3652; single copies are $25.00. San Jose
Office: 152 North Third Street,
Suite 705, San Jose, California 95112 Telephone: 408-271-2699 •
FAX: 408-271-2697 Email: center@highereducation.org •
Web site: www.highereducation.org Washington Office: 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 310,
Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: 202-822-6720 •
FAX: 202-822-6730 Reports
and Analyses Published by the National Center 98-1 Concept Paper: A National Center to Address
Higher Education Policy, by Patrick M. Callan (March 1998).
98-2 The Price of Admission: The Growing
Importance of Higher Education, by John Immerwahr (Spring 1998). A national
survey of Americans’ views on higher education, conducted and reported by Public
Agenda. 98-3
Organizing for Learning: The View from the
Governor’s Office, by James B.
Hunt Jr., Governor of North Carolina and Chair of the National Center (June
1998). An address to the American Association for Higher Education concerning
opportunity in higher education. 98-4
Tidal Wave II Revisited: A Review of Earlier
Enrollment Projections for California Higher Education, by Gerald C. Hayward, David W. Breneman and
Leobardo F. Estrada (September 1998). Finds that earlier forecasts of a surge in
higher education enrollments were accurate. 98-5
The Challenges Facing California Higher Education:
A Memorandum to the Next Governor of California, by David W. Breneman (September 1998).
98-6
Federal Tuition Tax Credits and State Higher
Education Policy: A Guide for State Policy Makers, by Kristin D. Conklin (December 1998). Examines
the implications of the new federal income tax provisions on students and their
families. 98-7
Higher Education Governance: Balancing
Institutional and Market Influences, by Richard C. Richardson, Jr., Kathy Reeves
Bracco, Patrick M. Callan, and Joni E. Finney (November 1998). Describes the
structural relationships that affect institutional efficacy in higher education,
and argues that effective state policy achieves a balance between institutional
and market forces. 98-8
The Challenges and Opportunities Facing Higher
Education: An Agenda for Policy Research, by Dennis Jones, Peter Ewell, and Aims
McGuinness (December 1998). Argues that due to substantial changes in the
landscape of postsecondary education, new state-level policy frameworks must be
developed and implemented. 99-1 Taking Responsibility: Leaders’ Expectations
of Higher Education, by John Immerwahr (January 1999). Reports the views of
those most involved with decision-making about higher education, based on a
survey and focus groups conducted by Public Agenda. 99-2 South Dakota: Developing Policy-Driven
Change in Higher Education, by Mario Martinez (June 1999). Describes the
processes for change in higher education that government, business and higher
education leaders are creating and implementing in South Dakota.
99-3 State Spending for Higher Education in the
Next Decade: The Battle to Sustain Current Support, by Harold A. Hovey (July
1999). This fiscal forecast of state and local spending patterns finds that the
vast majority of states will face significant fiscal deficits over the next
eight years. 00-1 A State-by-State Report Card on Higher
Education: Prospectus (March 2000). Describes the National Center’s
forthcoming state-by-state report card on higher education.
00-2 Great Expectations: How the Public and
Parents—White, African American and Hispanic—View Higher Education, by John
Immerwahr with Tony Foleno (May 2000). This report by Public Agenda finds that
Americans overwhelmingly see higher education as essential for success. Survey
results are also available for the following states: 00-2b Great Expectations: How Pennsylvanians
View Higher Education (May 2000). 00-2c Great Expectations: How Floridians View
Higher Education (August 2000). 00-2d Great Expectations: How Coloradans View
Higher Education (August 2000). 00-2e Great Expectations: How Californians
View Higher Education (August 2000). 00-2f Great Expectations: How New Yorkers View
Higher Education (October 2000). 00-2h Great Expectations: How Illinois
Residents View Higher Education (October 2000). 00-3 Measuring Up 2000: The State-by-State Report
Card for Higher Education (November 2000). This first-of-its-kind report
card grades each state on its performance in higher education. The report card
also provides national highlights, comprehensive profiles of each state and
brief states-at-a-glance comparisons. Single copies are available for $25.00 by
calling 888-269-3652. Discounts are available for larger orders.
00-4 Technical Guide Documenting Methodology,
Indicators and Data Sources for Measuring Up 2000 (November 2000).
00-5 Assessing Student Learning Outcomes: A
Supplement to Measuring Up 2000, by Peter Ewell and Paula Ries (December
2000). National survey of state efforts to assess student learning outcomes in
higher education. 00-6 Recent State Policy Initiatives in
Education: A Supplement to Measuring Up 2000, by Aims McGuinness, Jr.
(December 2000). Highlights education initiatives that states have adopted since
1997–98. |