NCES Blog

This blog post is the second in a series highlighting the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Outcome Measures (OM) survey component. The first post introduced a new resource page that helps data reporters and users understand OM and how it compares to the Graduation Rates (GR) and Graduation Rates 200% (GR200) survey components. Using data from the OM survey component, this post provides key findings about the demographics and college outcomes of undergraduates in the United States and is designed to spark further study of student success using OM data.

What do Outcome Measures cohorts look like?

OM collects student outcomes for all entering degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, including non-first-time (i.e., transfer-in) and part-time students. Students are separated into eight subcohorts by entering status (i.e., first-time or non-first-time), attendance status (i.e., full-time or part-time), and Pell Grant recipient status.¹ Figure 1 shows the number and percentage distribution of degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates in each OM subcohort from 2009–10 to 2012–13, by institutional level.²

Key takeaways:

• Across all cohort years, the majority of students were not first-time, full-time (FTFT) students, a group typically referred to as “traditional” college students. At 2-year institutions, 36 percent of Pell Grant recipients and 16 percent of non-Pell Grant recipients were FTFT in 2012–13. At 4-year institutions, 43 percent of Pell Grant recipients and 44 percent of non-Pell Grant recipients were FTFT in 2012–13.
• Pell Grant recipient cohorts have become less “traditional” over time. In 2012–13, some 36 percent of Pell Grant recipients at 2-year institutions were FTFT, down 5 percentage points from 2009–10 (41 percent). At 4-year institutions, 43 percent of Pell Grant recipients were FTFT in 2012–13, down 5 percentage points from 2009–10 (48 percent).

NCES is excited to announce the release of a resource hub that focuses on data by geographic locale—Education Across America: Cities, Suburbs, Towns, and Rural Areas—using a three-phased approach. Released today, Phase I of this new resource hub involves the consolidation of locale-focused data across NCES surveys and programs and makes updates to the latest data available. The result of this work is 140 tables with data disaggregated by all four locales (i.e., cities, suburbs, towns, and rural areas). These tables cover a wide range of topics grouped into broad themes: family characteristics, educational experiences, school resources and staffing, and educational outcomes. Phases II and III will focus on rural areas and involve summarizing findings in text.

To make these data more relevant and useful, NCES adopted a pyramid approach¹ to attend to various user segments with tiered products (exhibit 1). Source tables containing data disaggregated by locale form the base of the pyramid. These tables, which contain the most detailed statistical information about education in each locale, target data-savvy users such as researchers.

Exhibit 1. Tiered Approach to Products in Education Across America Resource Hub

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has introduced a new resource page for the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Outcome Measures (OM) survey component. This blog post provides an overview of the webpage and is the first in a series of blog posts that will showcase OM data.

Measuring Student Success in IPEDS: Graduation Rates (GR), Graduation Rates 200% (GR200), and Outcome Measures (OM) is a new resource page designed to help data reporters and users better understand the value of OM data and how the OM survey component works, particularly when compared with the Graduation Rates (GR) and Graduation Rates 200% (GR200) survey components.

The OM survey component was added to IPEDS in 2015–16 in an effort to capture postsecondary outcomes for more than so-called “traditional” college students. From 1997–98 to 2015–16, IPEDS graduation rate data were collected only for first-time, full-time (FTFT) degree/certificate-seeking (DGCS) undergraduates through the GR and GR200 survey components. Unlike these survey components, OM collects student outcomes for all entering DGCS undergraduates, including non-first-time students (i.e., transfer-in students) and part-time students.

Outcome measures are useful as characteristics of students vary by the level of institution. In 2009, some 4.7 million students began at 2-year postsecondary institutions, and 25 percent were full-time students who were attending college for the first time. During the same period, some 4.5 million students began at 4-year institutions, and 44 percent were first-time, full-time students.¹

The new resource page answers several important questions about OM, GR, and GR200, including the following:

• Which institutions complete each survey component?
• Does the survey form vary by institutional type?
• What student success measures are included?
• Which students are included in the cohort?
• What is the timeframe for establishing student cohorts?
• Which subgroups (disaggregates) are included?
• What is the timing of data collection and release?

In answering these questions, the resource page highlights that OM provides a more comprehensive view of student success than do GR and GR200. Furthermore, it suggests that OM, GR, and GR200 are not directly comparable, as the survey components differ in terms of which institutions complete them, which students are captured, and how each measures cohorts. Here are some of the key differences:

• Institutions with FTFT cohorts complete the GR and GR200 components, whereas degree-granting institutions complete the OM component.
• GR and GR200 include only FTFT DGCS undergraduates, whereas OM includes all DGCS undergraduates.
• GR and GR200 cohorts are based on a fall term for academic reports and a full year (September 1–August 31) for program reporters, whereas OM cohorts are based on a full year (July 1–June 30) for all degree-granting institutions.

Finally, the resource page outlines how OM works, including how cohorts and subcohorts are established, which outcomes are collected at various status points, and when the public have access to submitted data. Exhibit 1 presents the current 2021–22 data collection timeline, including the cohort year, outcome status points, data collection period, and public release of OM data.

Exhibit 1. 2021­–22 Outcome Measures (OM) data collection timeline (2013–14 entering degree/certificate-seeking cohort)

NCES staff presented information on reading data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Studies (ECLS) Program at the June 2021 Institute of Education Sciences (IES)/Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS) Reading Summit. The ECLS data cover a wide range of reading-related topics, such as children’s reading knowledge and skills, home literacy activities, and teachers’ instructional practices. The presentation included a brief overview of three ECLS program studies and the reading-related data collected by each. In addition, the presentation included a discussion of the resources available to either see what research has been conducted with the data or explore the data independently. As the focus of the presentation was on data available to the public for secondary analysis, its target audience was researchers and others with a data science focus.

Access the Reading Summit presentation—Reading Data Available from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Studies (ECLS)—and handout below to learn more about ECLS reading data.

• Video presentation
• Presentation slides
• Resources handout

Be sure to also check out this blog post to learn more about the work highlighted at the IES Reading Summit.

By Jill Carlivati McCarroll, NCES

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought enormous challenges to the education system, including a historic decline in enrollment in fall 2020—the largest since during World War II. Due to the relatively small decrease in the number of teachers, there was a significant drop in the pupil/teacher ratio.  

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) releases key statistics, including school staffing data, compiled from state administrative records through the Common Core of Data (CCD). In 2019, about 48 percent of public school staff were teachers (3.2 million) and 13 percent were instructional aides (0.9 million). NCES’s new School Pulse Panel survey found that in January 2022, about 61 percent of public schools with at least one vacancy reported that the pandemic increased the number of teacher and staff vacancies, and 57 percent of schools with at least one vacancy found that the pandemic forced them to use teachers outside their normal duty areas.

Pupil/teacher ratios provide a measure of the quantity of instructional resources available to students by comparing the number of students with the total full-time equivalent (FTE) of all teachers, including special education teachers. The public and private elementary and secondary average class size is larger than the pupil/teacher ratio since it normally does not factor into team teaching, specialty teachers, or special education classes. Between fall 2019 and fall 2020, enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools¹ decreased by 2.7 percent.² This decrease was larger than the 0.2 percent (6,700)³ decrease in the number of public school teachers. Since fall 2020, public school enrollment decreased by a larger amount than did the number of teachers. Thus, the pupil/teacher ratio declined in school year 2020–21 by a relatively large 0.5 pupils per teacher, from 15.9 to 15.4 pupils per teacher (figure 1). This is the largest 1-year decrease in more than 4 decades. In comparison, the pupil/teacher ratio for private schools was 11.4 in 2019–20 (the latest year of actual data available). It is worth noting that pupil/teacher ratios vary across schools with different characteristics (table 208.10).

Viewed over a longer term, the pupil/teacher ratio in public schools in 2019–20 (15.9) was only slightly lower than in 2010–11 (16.0), so nearly all the change during the 2010–11 to 2020–21 period occurred in the last year. The pupil/teacher ratio for private schools decreased from 12.5 in 2010–11 to 11.4 in 2019–20.