e-Literate

Present is Prologue

Tag: WCET

  • Forbes Fantasies: Why Hillsdale College is not in the College Scorecard (hint, boring reasons)

    Richard Vedder wrote a particularly uninformed article in Forbes on Friday about the Education Department (ED) not including Hillsdale College in the new College Scorecard. Freed from the burden of facts or research, Vedder let loose the dogs of conspiracy [emphasis in original].

    The Obama Administration, with much hype, released its College Scorecard recently, designed to help students find the college that best fits their interest. The Scorecard includes some interesting information, such as data on student repayment of college loan debt, the average post-graduate earnings, et cetera. But as we delve more into it, something arguably sinister is revealed: the Scorecard excludes mention of several prominent colleges with a conservative or traditional academic orientation.

    Vedder then speculates that the reasons for the omission are A) Hillsdale not accepting any form of federal financial assistance and the associated regulations and B) Hillsdale having a conservative orientation. At the end of the short post Vedder comes back to reality.

    It may be my sinister thinking is unwarranted, that there were reasons unrelated to ideology or refusal to accept financial aid that figure in the exclusion of these schools. But even so, they are legitimate, even accredited, educational institutions, and their exclusion diminishes the utility and the perceived integrity of the new Scorecard.

    Would that Richard of the First Paragraph would talk to Richard of the Last Paragraph before posting, because Richard the Last got it right. The sinister thinking is unwarranted. (more…)

  • College Scorecard Problem Gets Worse: One in three associate’s degree institutions are not included

    Late yesterday I posted about the Education Department (ED) new College Scorecard and how it omits a large number of community colleges based on an arbitrary metric.

    In particular, the Education Department (ED) is using a questionable method of determining whether an institution is degree-granting rather than relying on the IPEDS data source. In a nutshell, if an institution awarded more certificates than degrees, then it is not labeled as “predominantly awarded 2-year or 4-yeard degrees” and therefore excluded.

    I am not quite confident that the explanation for the vast majority of missing schools is based on this finding. In short, if an institutions awards more certificates than degrees, ED removes them from the public-facing website even if they are technically degree-granting institutions.

    Originally it appeared this situation encompassed 17% of all community colleges, but further analysis shows it to be more significant. (more…)

  • 17% Of Community Colleges Are Not Included In College Scorecard

    In addition to the highly-misleading usage of ‘first-time full-time’ qualification for official graduate rates reported in the College Scorecard, there appears to be another major issue with the data. In particular, the Education Department (ED) is using a questionable method of determining whether an institution is degree-granting rather than relying on the IPEDS data source. In a nutshell, if an institution awarded more certificates than degrees, then it is not labeled as “predominantly awarded 2-year or 4-yeard degrees” and therefore excluded.

    Russ Poulin noted in his WCET post that several community colleges were missing from the Scorecard based on a quick spot check:

    • Colorado – Aims, Front Range, Pueblo, and Otero Community Colleges.
    • Arizona – Rio Salado College.
    • California – Bakersfield College.

    The consumer website itself offers no explanation that certain degree-granting schools are excluded. The Technical Paper that corresponds to the data release explains that selection of schools on page 28: (more…)

  • College Scorecard: An example from UMUC on fundamental flaw in the data

    Russ Poulin at WCET has a handy summary of the new College Scorecard produced by the Education Department (ED) and the White House. This is a “first read” given the scorecard’s Friday release, but it is quite valuable since Russ participated on an ED Data Panel related to the now-abandoned Ratings System, the precursor to the Scorecard. Russ describes the good, the “not so good”, and the “are you kidding me?” elements. One area in particular highlighted by Russ is the usage of the “dreaded first-time, full-time completion rates”:

    I knew this would be the case, but it really irks me. Under current data collected by the Department’s IPEDS surveys. They the group on which they base their “Graduation Rate” as: “Data are collected on the number of students entering the institution as full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students in a particular year (cohort), by race/ethnicity and gender; the number completing their program within 150 percent of normal time to completion; the number that transfer to other institutions if transfer is part of the institution’s mission.”

    This rate has long been a massive disservice to institutions focused on serving adults and community colleges. Here are some example rates: Empire State: 28%, Western Governors University: 26%, University of Maryland University College: 4%, Charter Oak Colleges: no data, and Excelsior College: no data.. The problem is that these numbers are based on incredibly small samples for these schools and do not reflect the progress of the bulk of the student body.

    I won’t quote data for community colleges because they are all negatively impacted. They often serve a large number of students who are not “first-time” or define “success” in other ways.

    I know that they are working on a fix to this problem in the future. Meanwhile, who atones for the damage this causes to these institution’s reputation. This data display rewards colleges who shy away from non-traditional or disadvantaged students. Is this what we want?

    Russ is not the only one noting this problem. Consider this analysis from Friday [emphasis added]: (more…)

  • Personalized Learning Changes: Effect on instructors and coaches

    Kate Bowles left an interesting comment at my previous post about an ASU episode on e-Literate TV, where I argued that there is a profound change in the instructor role. Her comment:

    Phil, I’m interested to know if you found anything out about the pay rates for coaches v TAs. I’m also interested in what coaches were actually paid to do — how the parameters of their employable hours fit what they ended up doing. Academics are rarely encouraged to think of their work in terms of billable increments, because this would sink the ship. But still I’m curious. Did ASU really just hike up their staffing costs in moving to personalised learning, or was there some other cost efficiency here? If the overall increase in students paid off, how did this happen? I’m grappling with how this worked for ASU in budgetary terms, as the pedagogical gain is so clear.

    This comment happened to coincide with my participation in WCET’s Leadership Summit on Adaptive Learning, where similar subjects were being discussed. For the purposes of this blog post, we’ll use the “personalized learning” language, which includes use of adaptive software as a subset. Let’s first address the ASU-specific questions. (more…)

  • WCET14 Student Panel: What do students think of online education?

    Yesterday at the WCET14 conference in Portland I had the opportunity along with Pat James to moderate a student panel. ((Pat is the executive director of the California Community College Online Education Initiative (OEI) – see her blog here for program updates.)) I have been trying to encourage conference organizers to include more opportunities to let students speak for themselves – becoming real people with real stories rather than nameless aggregations of assumptions. WCET stepped up with this session. And my new favorite tweet ((I’m not above #shameless.)):

    As I called out in my introduction, we talk about students, we characterize students, we listen to others talk about students, but we don’t do a good job in edtech talking with students.  There is no way that a student panel can be representative of all students, even for a single program or campus ((As can be seen from this monochromatic panel, which might make sense for Portland demographics but not from a nationwide perspective.)). We’re not looking for statistical answers, but we can hear stories and gain understanding.

    (more…)

  • Investigation of IPEDS Distance Education Data Highlights System Not Ready for Modern Trends

    This article is cross-posted to the WCET blog.

    After billions of dollars spent on administrative computer systems and billions of dollars invested in ed tech companies, the U.S. higher education system is woefully out of date and unable to cope with major education trends such as online & hybrid education, flexible terms, and the expansion of continuing and extended education. Based on an investigation of the recently released distance education data for IPEDS, the primary national education database maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), we have found significant confusion over basic definitions of terms, manual gathering of data outside of the computer systems designed to collect data, and, due to confusion over which students to include in IPEDS data, the systematic non-reporting of large numbers of degree-seeking students.

    In Fall 2012, the IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) data collection for the first time included distance education – primarily for online courses and programs. This data is important for policy makers and institutional enrollment management as well as for the companies serving the higher education market.

    We first noticed the discrepancies based on feedback from analysis that we have both included at the e-Literate and WCET blogs. One of the most troubling calls came from a state university representative that said that the school has never reported any students who took their credit bearing courses through their self-supported, continuing education program.  Since they did not include the enrollments in reporting to the state, they did not report those enrollments to IPEDS. These were credits toward degrees and certificate programs offered by the university and therefore should have been included in IPEDS reporting based on the following instructions. (more…)