Technical Guide
Documenting Methodology, Indicators and
Data Sources
For
Measuring Up
2000:
The State-by-State Report Card for Higher
Education
November 2000
The National Center for Public Policy and
Higher Education
Foreword
ThisTechnical Guide for Measuring Up 2000 provides complete information related to the indicators used in Measuring Up 2000: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education. Measuring Up 2000 is available in full at www.highereducation.org.
The Technical Guide defines all indicators used in Measuring Up 2000, describes the methodology, and identifies the sources of the data.
The Technical Guide was compiled by senior policy analyst William Doyle of the National Center. Kristin Conklin, Joy Gambino and Kathy Reeves Bracco also contributed to the research and review of the Technical Guide. Dennis Jones and Peter Ewell of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) provided an external review.
The National Center welcomes the comments of readers.
Joni Finney
Vice President
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Scoring and Grading State Performance
Preparation Participation Affordability Completion Benefits LearningAbout the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
This technical guide describes the methodology and concepts used to measure and grade the performance of the 50 states in the higher education arena. Part I presents the methodology for scoring states as well as notes on data collection and reporting. Part II explains the indicators that comprise each of the five graded categories. Specifically, this section details the construction of each indicator—its source, scope and computations. Part III provides information for two policy variables (equity, change over time) that are not included in the grade calculation, but are important to the state assessment. Part III also includes information on all other non-graded information, including state context, leading indicators, facts and figures, and public satisfaction.
The term higher education is used consistently throughout the report card. In this context, higher education refers to accredited colleges and universities that qualify for Title IV federal financial aid. Private for-profit institutions run by employers to provide training and professional development are not included in this analysis. Unless otherwise noted, the indicators included in this analysis refer to education and training through the bachelor’s degree.
States’ performance on different indicators is compared through an indexing method in which raw score data on actual outcomes for each indicator are scaled to the median value of the top five performing states. This median of best performance is the benchmark for all other states. Each state’s raw scores are indexed to (i.e., divided by) the benchmark on every indicator in every category. Naturally, as states’ performance changes across the category, the best performance of the states changes, resulting in a distinct benchmark for each indicator.
Once indexed, each value is mathematically weighted by a predetermined value that accounts for its individual influence in predicting category performance. The value of each weight was determined by existing quantitative research documenting the significance of these variables. Although some indicators are weighted more heavily than other indicators in a category, the sum of all assigned weights totals 100%. At the introduction of each category, the specific weights assigned to each indicator are described.
In practice, once the value of each indexed indicator is multiplied by the appropriate weight, the weighted indexed values are totaled. That sum is rounded to a whole number to create a raw category score. Comparing these raw indicator scores, the single best overall performer in the category is identified. The category best performer’s overall score is then set to 100, and the overall scores of all the states are indexed to this. The exception to this process occurs when a state’s raw category score is over 100. In that case, the benchmark score is set to 100. The result is a final category score to which alphabetic grades are assigned. The following grade scale is used:
|
Table 1 Grading Scale | |||||
| 93–and above | A | 80–82 | B– | 67–69 | D+ |
| 90–92 | A– | 77–79 | C+ | 63–66 | D |
| 87–89 | B+ | 73–76 | C | 60–62 | D– |
| 83–86 | B | 70–72 | C– | Below 60 | F |
The report card strives to include the most recent data available. There are instances, however, when collecting agencies require months to analyze and disseminate reports to the public. Additionally, in some cases, data are not systematically collected each year. Finally, it is possible that future assessments or studies have not received authorization or funding for subsequent data collection. These scenarios complicate timely assessment. State performance on the report card’s indicators may lag behind recent changes or incompletely capture the initiatives state policymakers have recently implemented.
Missing data presents a number of challenges to a statewide assessment such as a report card. Measuring Up 2000 measures category performance using nationally comparable, reliable data. Despite the scientific survey methods used to collect this survey data, information cannot always be reported reliably for each state. This can be attributed to the fact that many surveys do not intentionally oversample populations from each of the 50 states. Thus, estimates of behaviors, characteristics or educational activities of the populations in small states are unlikely to be captured adequately by a nationally drawn random sample. In cases of nationally administered surveys like the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), states are given the option to participate in a population oversample but may decline to take part.
To a certain extent, missing data are problematic for some categories. Nevertheless, indicators are included to gauge state performance in the report card despite cases in which data are missing for more than one state. Such indicators were retained because they capture salient policy issues and signal the necessity to expand formal data collection to each of the 50 states.
To adjust for missing data, several strategies were considered and discarded. Choosing to assign a zero value to states that did not report data on specific indicators presumes the lowest possible performance. Alternatively, relying on the mean value of all states’ performance presumes similarity between states that are in fact quite distinct. Calculating a grade using only available data distorts the weighting method applied because indicators with data become more important than those without data in the calculation of the overall grade, regardless of their overall influence in determining category performance.
Consequently, where no comparable data exists to gauge states’ performance on an individual indicator, a technique known as imputation is applied. This strategy calculates the weighted mean value of state performance on indicators within a given category for which data are available for the state and applies that value where data are otherwise missing. This technique is applied to every state with missing data, using the weighted mean score of the state’s own performance. Imputing in this way presumes the state does neither better nor worse on an indicator for which it is missing data than it does on highly correlated indicators within the same category.
A final issue of note is that of migration of students and college graduates. Migration is a critical component of state performance in many of these categories, and its importance cannot be understated. Although indicators in the educational benefits and participation categories would do well to adjust for migration, this type of detailed analysis at the state level is simply not possible given current practices of data collection. Unless otherwise noted, population changes resulting from inter-state migration cannot be accounted for in this report card due to data limitations.
Indicators,
Clusters and Weights
|
Cluster/Indicator |
Weight |
|
Cluster
1: High School Completion |
20% |
|
18-
to 24-year-olds with a high school credential |
20% |
|
Cluster
2: K–12 Course Taking |
40% |
|
9th
to 12th graders taking at least one upper-level math
course |
15% |
|
9th
to 12th graders taking at least one upper-level science
course |
15% |
|
8th
grade students taking algebra |
10% |
|
Cluster
3: K–12 Student Achievement |
40% |
|
8th
graders scoring at or above “proficient” on the national assessment exam
in math |
5% |
|
8th
graders scoring at or above “proficient” on the national assessment exam
in reading |
5% |
|
8th
graders scoring at or above “proficient” on the national assessment exam
in writing |
5% |
|
Low-income
8th graders scoring at or above “proficient” on the national
exam in math |
5% |
|
Number
of scores in the top 20% nationally on SAT/ACT college entrance exam per
1,000 high school graduates |
10% |
|
Number
of scores that are 3 or higher on an Advanced Placement subject test per
1,000 high school juniors and seniors |
10% |
After
almost 15 years of concerted national effort to document comparably the
achievement of elementary and secondary students, most of the indicators in this
category are available for all 50 states. If data are not available, it is
because states have declined to provide the data to a collecting organization or
to participate in a state oversample.
HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETION:
18-to 24-year-olds with a high school credential
Source:
U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey October 1996, 1997
and 1998 Supplements. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999. State level
analysis provided by Pinkerton Computer Consultants, 2000.
This
measure uses the following calculation:
Numerator:
The number of 18- to 24-year-olds in the population holding a high school
credential.
Denominator:
The total population aged 18-24, excluding those still enrolled in high school
or currently pursuing alternative certification.
A
high school credential is a high school diploma or alternative degree
certification such as a General Educational Development (GED) diploma.
Notes
This
indicator captures the extent to which the young adult population in the state
is minimally certified to participate in the workforce and participate in
postsecondary education. This indicator is not a calculation of the percent of
students graduating from high school in four years. Given the drop out and
re-entry patterns of many students, a simple calculation of high school
graduation rate would fail to capture their eventual completion.
Data
Availability
This
indicator pools three years of the most current data, 1996-98, to obtain a large
enough sample size to make reliable state estimates and to account for
aberrations in any single year of data. Using this method, data are available
for each of the 50 states.
K–12 COURSE TAKING:
9th
to 12th graders taking at least one upper-level math
course
Source:
Council
of Chief State School Officers. State
Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education: 1999. Washington, DC: Council of Chief
State School Officers, 1999, p. 21.
Upper-level
math course taking estimates the percentage of public high school students in
the state who take one or more of the following classes in grades 9–12:
geometry, algebra 2, trigonometry, pre-calculus or calculus.
High
school transcript data for every student in every state are unavailable. To
report high school math course taking at the state level, Council of Chief State
School Officers (CCSSO) uses statistical measures to create an artificial cohort
of students. Specifically, CCSSO gathers information on the actual number of
students enrolled in each course for a given year, and then approximates the
number of students enrolled in each high school grade level in the state for the
same year. Student course enrollment can then be weighted by regional factors of
total enrollment (weight assignments are not state specific). Using this method,
CCSSO can estimate the number of math courses a typical student in each state
would take prior to graduation. Due to these approximation techniques, variation
between the sample estimate and the actual course enrollments in each state is
possible, though standard error tables do not accompany the CCSSO indicators.
Although
high school humanities subject course taking is also important to students’
preparation, neither the CCSSO nor any other organization collects this type of
data comparably from the states.
Data
Availability
Data
are available from 30 states for both science and mathematics indicators. States
for which data are unavailable: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and
Wyoming.
K–12 COURSE TAKING:
9th
to 12th graders taking at least one upper-level science
course
Source:
Council
of Chief State School Officers. State
Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education: 1999. Washington, DC:
Council of Chief State School Officers, p. 22.
A
separate but similar indicator to math course taking, science course taking
assesses the extent to which students in the state are enrolled in one or more
of the following science courses: chemistry, physics, biology, Advanced
Placement biology, earth science or other advanced science courses.
Notes
High
school transcript data for every student in every state are unavailable. To
report high school science course taking at the state level, CCSSO uses
statistical measures to create an artificial cohort of students. Specifically,
CCSSO gathers information on the actual number of students enrolled in each
course for a given year, and then approximates the number of students enrolled
in each high school grade level in the state for the same year. Student course
enrollment can then be weighted by regional factors of total enrollment (weight
assignments are not state specific). Using this method, CCSSO can estimate the
number of science courses a typical student in each state would take prior to
graduation. Due to these approximation techniques, variation between the sample
estimate and the actual course enrollments in each state is possible, though
standard error tables do not accompany the CCSSO indicators.
Although
high school humanities subject course taking is also important to students’
preparation, neither the CCSSO nor any other organization collects this type of
data comparably from the states.
Data
Availability
Data
are available from 30 states for both science and mathematics indicators. States
for which data are unavailable: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and
Wyoming.
K–12
COURSE TAKING:
8th
grade students taking algebra
Source:
Council
of Chief State School Officers. State
Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education: 1999. Washington, DC:
Council of Chief State School Officers, p. 23.
This
measure uses the following calculation:
Numerator:
Number of eighth grade students taking algebra in academic year
1997-98.
Denominator:
Total eighth grade public school enrollment.
Notes
The
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) collects these data annually from
the state departments of education.
Data
Availability
27
states responded and adhered to reporting requirements in the most recent
assessment. Data are available for 27 states. States for which data are missing:
Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and
Wyoming.
K–12
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
8th
graders scoring at or above “proficient” on the national assessment exam in
math
Source:
U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress,
1998 State Mathematics Resultsľ
Data Almanac for Grade 8.
Washington, DC: NCES, 1996.
These
proficiency rates describe the percentage of all eighth graders enrolled in
public and private school whose performance on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) was “proficient” or “advanced.”
Notes
Academic
proficiency levels are determined by the National Assessment Governing Board,
based on judgments about what students should know and be able to
do.
Data
Availability
Data
were collected on mathematics proficiencies in 1996; 40 states participated in
the eighth grade math assessment. States for which data are missing: Idaho,
Illinois, Kansas, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, and South Dakota.
K–12
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
8th
graders scoring at or above “proficient” on the national assessment exam
in reading
Source:
U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress,
1998 National and State Reading Summary Data Tables for Grade 8 Student
Data. Washington, DC: NCES, 1998.
These
proficiency rates describe the percentage of all eighth graders enrolled in
public and private school whose performance on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) was “proficient” or “advanced.”
Notes
Academic
proficiency levels are determined by the National Assessment Governing Board,
based on judgments about what students should know and be able to
do.
Data
Availability
36
states participated in the eighth grade reading assessment. States for which
data are missing: Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and
Vermont.
K–12
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
8th
graders scoring at or above “proficient” on the national assessment exam in
writing
Source:
U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress,
1998 National and State Writing Summary Data Tables for Grade 8 Student
Data. Washington, DC: NCES, 1998.
These
proficiency rates describe the percentage of all eighth graders enrolled in
public and private school whose performance on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) was “proficient” or “advanced.”
Notes
Academic
proficiency levels are determined by the National Assessment Governing Board,
based on judgments about what students should know and be able to do.
Data
Availability
In
1998, 35 states participated in the eighth grade writing assessment. States for
which data are missing: Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
South Dakota, and Vermont.
K–12 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
Low-income
8th graders scoring at or above “proficient” on the national
assessment exam in math
Source:
U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress
1996 Mathematics Report Card. Washington, DC: NCES, 1996, Table B.18, p.
135.
These
proficiency rates describe the percentage of eligible eighth graders enrolled in
public schools who are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and whose
performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was
“proficient” or “advanced.”
Notes
Academic
proficiency levels are determined by the National Assessment Governing Board,
based on judgments about what students should know and be able to
do.
Data
Availability
Data
were collected on mathematics proficiencies in 1996. Data are available for 31
states. States for which data are missing: Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, and
Wisconsin.
K–12 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
Number of scores in the top 20% nationally on SAT/ACT college entrance exams per 1,000
high school graduates
Sources:
Test
Scores:
College Board. “SAT I Overview Report With Means: National: All 1200 or Greater”
(Unpublished Analysis). New York: The College Board, 1999.
ACT.
“Percent of Students in Each State Who Scored 26 or Higher” (Unpublished
Analysis). Iowa City: ACT, 1999.
High
School Graduates:
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Knocking at the College Door: Projections of
High School Graduates by State and Race/Ethnicity 1996–2012. Boulder: WICHE,
1998.
Conversion:
Marco,
Gary L., and Others. Methods Used To
Establish Score Comparability on the Enhanced ACT Assessment and the SAT.
New York: College Board, 1992.
This
indicator reflects the prevalence of four-year college test taking throughout
the state as well as the achievement that student test takers demonstrate.
College entrance exam achievement is calculated per 1000 high school graduates
in each state using the following formula:
Numerator:
(Number of SAT test takers scoring at or above 1200) + (Number of ACT test
takers scoring at or above 26)
Denominator:
Number of 1999 public and private high school graduates
Notes
Nationally
18% of test takers score at or above a 1200 on the SAT. Students attaining this
score, or higher, approximate the top quintile of SAT test takers. Though the
ACT exams are administered independently and use a different scoring methodology
than that used by the College Board for SAT scores, a common conversion method
can be applied. ACT exam scores of 26 are the equivalent of a 1200 on the SAT
exam.
The
National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS: 88) indicates that 15% of high
school seniors take both the SAT and the ACT, although data are not collected in
such a way as to provide an unduplicated count of test takers. This ratio does
not provide information on the number of
students in each state who take college preparatory exams. Instead, the
numerator measures the total number of
scores above a 1200 on the SAT and a 26 on the ACT. Constructed this way,
the measure accounts for individual students who perform proficiently on more
than one college entrance exam.
Data
Availability
Data
are available for all 50 states.
K–12
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
Number of scores that are 3 or higher on an Advanced Placement subject test per 1,000
high school juniors and seniors
Source:
Westat/
National Education Goals Panel. “AP Public and Private 11th and
12th Graders Scoring 3+ on All Tests per 1000” (Unpublished
Analysis). Washington, DC: Westat, 1999.
This
indicator measures the number of Advanced Placement examinations with scores of
3 or higher on a scale of 1–5 per 1,000 eleventh and twelfth grade students. The
measure uses the following calculation:
Numerator:
Number of Advanced Placement test scores of 3, 4 or 5.
Denominator:
Total eleventh and twelfth grade public and private school
enrollment.
The
number of eleventh and twelfth graders includes students enrolled in public and
private schools. These enrollment figures were computed by multiplying the
public enrollment by a private-enrollment adjustment factor developed by data
contractors working with the College Board. The total enrollment of eleventh and
twelfth graders in the state is used because 90% of all AP test-taking
candidates are enrolled in these grades.
Notes
This
ratio does not provide information on the number of students in each state who
take an advanced placement test. Instead, the numerator measures the total number of scores above a 3.
Constructed this way, the measure accounts for individual students who perform
proficiently on more than one AP exam. Scores above 3 are generally recognized
for college credit.
Opportunities
other than AP exist for students to take college-level courses while enrolled in
college, including the International Baccalaureate (IB) program and local
concurrent enrollment programs. The Advanced Placement program offered by the
College Board is the most prevalent in U.S. high schools and the most widely
recognized for credit by policymakers and colleges and universities.
Data
Availability
Data
are available for all 50 states.
PARTICIPATION
The participation category assesses the opportunities in each state for citizens of
varying ages and income abilities to enroll in postsecondary education.
To
broadly assess state performance in this category, various enrollment patterns
and institution types are considered. These include full- and part-time
enrollment at both two- and four-year institutions, and public and private
colleges. Due to the lack of nationally comparable data, however, participation
in non-accredited institutions, corporate or employer-sponsored education
programs, and career training are not included.
The
three indicators in participation are divided into two clusters, and are
weighted in the following manner:
Indicators,
Clusters and Weights
|
Cluster/Indicator |
Weight |
|
Cluster
1: Young Adults |
60% |
|
High
school freshmen enrolling in college within 4 years in any
state |
40% |
|
18-
to 24-year-olds enrolling in college |
20% |
|
Cluster
2: Working-Age Adults |
40% |
|
25-
to 44-year-olds enrolled part-time in some type of postsecondary
education |
40% |
YOUNG ADULTS:
High school freshmen enrolling in college within 4 years
in any state
Sources:
Indicator Analysis: Mortenson, Thomas. “Chance for College by Age 19.” Postsecondary Education Opportunity. No. 69, March 1998.
Public 9th graders: National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 1995. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1996, p. 57.
Public high school graduates: National Center for Education Statistics. Public Elementary and Secondary Education Statistics, School Year 1997-1998. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1998.
College enrollment: National Center for Educational Statistics: Residence and Migration of First-time Freshmen Enrolled in Degree-Granting Institutions, Fall 1996. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1998.
This indicator measures
the probability that students will enroll in college during the year following
an on-time high school graduation (when most students are approximately age 19).
To calculate this
measure, the high school completion rate is multiplied by the college
continuation rate. The following formula describes the components of this
calculation.
Denominator: Number of public school ninth graders in 1992
Completion Rate
Denominator: Number of public high school graduates in
1996
Continuation Rate
This indicator adjusts
for migration by using the NCES residence and migration survey, which followed
high school graduates to the institutions they chose to attend. Since many
students pursue their college education out-of-state, students’ enrollment in
college is attributed to the state in which they received their high school
diplomas.
This is a synthetic cohort statistic that cannot adjust for students’ out-of-state migration during the high school years. Nationally comparable longitudinal data do not exist to measure precisely the college-going rate of 9th grade students in each state.
Data
Availability
Data
are available for all 50 states.
YOUNG ADULTS:
18-to 24-year-olds enrolling in college
Source:
U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey, October 1996,
1997 and 1998 Supplements. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999. State-level
analysis provided by Pinkerton Computer Consultants, 2000.
This
indicator reports the percent of all 18- to 24-year-old high school graduates
enrolled in postsecondary education. The measure uses the following
calculation:
Numerator:
Total population of adults aged 18 to 24 enrolled in grades 13–17 who have not
yet attained baccalaureate degrees.
Denominator:
Total population aged 18 to 24.
Notes
Students
already holding a baccalaureate degree and returning for additional or different
credentials are not included in this figure.
Data
Availability
This
indicator pools three years of the most current data, 1996-98, to obtain a large
enough sample size to make reliable state estimates and to account for
aberrations in any single year of data. Data are available for all 50
states.
Source:
Population
Enrolled: National
Center for Education Statistics. Fall
Enrollment Survey, 1997 (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System):
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1999. State-level
analysis provided by Pinkerton Computer Consultants, 2000.
Population:
U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey October 1996, 1997
and 1998 Supplements. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999. State analysis
provided by Pinkerton Computer Consultants, 2000.
The
indicator measures the percent of 25- to 44-year-old high school graduates
enrolled part-time in an institution of higher education. The following
calculation is used:
Numerator:
Population of adults aged 25 to 49 with at least a high school credential who
are enrolled part time in an institution of higher
education.
Denominator:
Population of adults aged 25 to 44 with at least a high school
credential.
Notes
This
indicator focuses on part-time enrollment to assess the opportunities in each
state to enroll part-time in postsecondary education. It includes adults
enrolled in undergraduate and graduate level courses. Due to differences in data
collection methods, an exact age-match among the adult population is not
possible.
Data
Availability
Data are available for all 50 states.
Affordability is based on these concepts:
| · | Students’ capacity to pay for college given the type of institution they attend, the financial aid they receive and their income constraints. | |
| · | The amount of need-based grant assistance they receive to offset expenses. | |
| · | The loan burden associated with their higher education expenses. |
The six indicators included in this category combine data from a variety of sources. Together, they calculate a reasonable estimate of the actual amount that people in the state pay for higher education as well as the extent to which states employ policies to make college more affordable.
No
comprehensive, student-level, comparable state data capturing price of
attendance for higher education currently exist. This category uses best
estimates to assess the extent to which college is affordable for citizens of
varying income levels in each state.
Indicators, Clusters and Weights
|
Indicator/Cluster |
Weight |
|
Family ability to pay |
50% |
|
Family ability to pay at community colleges |
Weighted by student enrollment in sector |
|
Family ability to pay at public 4-year colleges |
Weighted by student enrollment in sector |
|
Family ability to pay at private 4-year colleges |
Weighted by student enrollment in sector |
|
Strategies for affordability |
40% |
|
Need-based financial aid |
20% |
|
Low-priced colleges |
20% |
|
Reliance on loans |
10% |
|
Student borrowing |
10% |
FAMILY ABILITY TO PAY:
Percent of family
income needed to pay for college expenses after financial
aid—
at community
colleges
at public 4-year
colleges/universities
at private 4-year
colleges/universities
Sources:
Tuition and room and board: National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 1999. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2000, p. 346.
Pell grants: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. Title IV/ Pell Grant End of the Year Report, 1998–1999. U.S. Department of Education, Table 21.
Institutional aid: Barbett, Sam and Korb, Roslyn. Current Fund Revenues and Expenditures of Degree Granting Institutions, Fiscal Year 1996. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1999, Tables 10, 11, 12.
State
income:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey March 1996, 1997
and 1998 Supplements. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999. State-level
analysis provided by Pinkerton Computer Consultants, 2000.
Grant phase-out information: National Center for Education Statistics. National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey, 1996. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Data Analysis System Variables: PELLAMT, INSTAMT, STATNEED, STATNOND, TOTGRT By CINCOME. Filtered by institution level and control for public 2-year, public 4-year, and private 4-year.
State grants: (need- and non-need-based): DeSalvatore, Kristen. National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs 20th Annual Survey, 1998–1999 Academic Survey Report. Albany, NY: National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, 2000, Table 1.
Full-time equivalent enrollment: National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 1999. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2000, p. 229.
Notes
College affordability is based on institutional price, the adequacy of state effort to meet students’ financial need, and students’ personal or family income. The ability to pay indicator examines the interaction of these important factors given 1) the variation in personal income that families of different means must pay to meet college costs, and 2) the variations in price across the public/private and 2- and 4-year sectors.
To assess state performance reliably and comparably, this indicator is based on a set of assumptions and a series of calculations that use a combination of national and state level data. The first set of calculations determines the approximate net price of college attendance, taking into account federal, state and institutional financial aid. The second set of calculations relates this net price to families’ annual income and takes into account the share of total enrollment at each of the major sectors in higher education: public 2-year colleges, public 4-year colleges and universities, and private 4-year colleges and universities.
Components of Net Price
Tuition and
fees
The average tuition and fees (listed for in-state residents) are calculated by state for each of the major sectors in higher