|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
Graduation Rates and Student Success-
Squaring Means and Ends |
Overview
In the field of higher education accountability, few metrics have attracted as much attention—or controversy—as the institutional graduation
rate. Since the establishment of a graduation rate definition in the federal Student Right to Know Act of 1990 (SRTK), campus and system leaders,
state and federal policymakers, and researchers have extensively analyzed and debated this indicator of student success. Policymakers cite graduation
rates of less than 50 percent in bemoaning institutional effectiveness, the higher education community questions the legitimacy of such a metric,
and analysts probe methodological limitations. As one of the only comparable and widely recognized outcome measures in postsecondary education, the
graduation rate deserves scrutiny as well as improvement.
Despite claims that the graduation rate lacks validity as an institutional performance measure because it relies heavily on student characteristics
and actions, AASCU maintains that it is a legitimate accountability indicator. Research has demonstrated that campus and system policy, practice,
and culture do affect student persistence and completion, making institutions an important stakeholder in the promotion of student success. At the
same time, it is important for advocates of this measure to recognize that graduation rates represent just one part of a broader outcomes picture
and should not be viewed as the sole indicator of student success or campus performance.
Perhaps more importantly, stakeholders must recognize the serious and significant limitations of a graduation rate methodology that results in a single
indicator of institutional performance based on first-time, full-time (i.e. “traditional”) students over a limited time period. Such an
approach fails to recognize the diversity of higher education institutions, changing demographics, and complex attendance patterns. These limitations
have serious public policy consequences, particularly as policymakers place more emphasis on outcome measures in holding colleges and universities
accountable.
Recent initiatives at the state and national levels reveal that options exist for improving the utility of this measure, both for institutional management
and public accountability. Alternative methodologies for tracking student progress and success, enabled by technologies such as unit record data systems,
offer more comprehensive information about the full range of student outcomes, as well as the student and institutional factors affecting those outcomes.
By exploring and adopting one or more of the tools and methodologies outlined here, public higher education’s stakeholders will be better equipped
to answer questions that have remained elusive since the graduation rate entered the mainstream accountability lexicon.1
Campus and system leaders, working with federal and state policymakers, should commit to developing a transparent, multi-faceted approach to analyzing
and communicating student completion data. Failing to do this will perpetuate a status quo in which important questions about what happens to students
will remain unanswered, and the drive for higher completion rates among first-time, full-time students could come at the expense of opportunities
for part-time and adult students. These outcomes do not represent a satisfactory response to the dual challenges of maintaining international competitiveness
in educational attainment and meeting student demand with limited public resources. |
|
|
|
| 1. The National Center for Education Statistics’
longitudinal surveys offer some insights into these questions, but this information cannot be interpreted at the institutional level. For example, the National
Education Longitudinal Study found that 53 percent of students entering college in 1992 graduated from the same school within six years. However, if one
adds in those who transferred to another institution and lengthens the time frame to 8.5 years, the completion rate increases to 69 percent. |
|
|
