IES Blog

Institute of Education Sciences

Public Charter School Expenditures by School Level

June 22, 2022 NCES Blog Editor Findings, General Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

How do we achieve the best education results for the best price? This is a central question among researchers and policymakers alike. In this blog post, we share outcomes from school year 2017–18 concerning public charter school spending at the elementary, middle, and high school levels to help inform the discussion on charter school costs and benefits to the broader education system.

The first modern charter law in the United States was passed in Minnesota in 1991. Since that time, the number of charter schools has grown tremendously as an option in public elementary and secondary education. In 2017–18, the United States had 7,086 public charter schools in 44 states and the District of Columbia. In a decade, from 2007–08 to 2017–18, the number of public charter schools in the United States increased more than 70 percent, representing a little more than 7 percent of all public schools at the end of this time period (figure 1).

Figure 1. Number of public charter schools in the United States: School years 2007–08 through 2017–18

Line graph showing the number of public charter schools in the United States for school years 2007–08 through 2017–18

NOTE: These data include counts of operational public elementary/secondary charter schools for the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), 2007–08 through 2017–18.

Nearly half (47 percent) of all public charter schools in the United States are classified as elementary schools, 11 percent are classified as middle schools, and 28 percent are classified as high schools (figure 2). The remainder (14 percent) have other grade-level configurations and do not fall into any of these categories.

Figure 2. Percentage of public charter schools in the United States, by school level: School year 2017–18

Pie chart showing percentage of public charter schools in the United States, by school level (elementary, middle, high, and other) for school year 2017–18

NOTE: These data reflect operational public elementary/secondary charter schools for the 50 states and the District of Columbia from the Common Core of Data (CCD) for 2017. School-level categories are taken from the Documentation to NCES’ Common Core of Data for school year 2017–18, whereby “Elementary” includes schools with students enrolled in grades K–4 that offer more elementary grades than middle grades; “Middle” includes schools with students enrolled in grades 5–8 that offer more middle grades than elementary or secondary grades; “High” includes schools with students enrolled in grade 12 and other secondary grades that offer more high grades than middle grades; and “Other” includes schools with both elementary and high grades or grades at all three levels (elementary, middle, and high). Excludes 2,360 schools categorized in the CCD as adult education, not applicable, not reported, prekindergarten-only, secondary, and ungraded.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2017–18.

According to expenditure data captured in the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), public schools in the United States spent $330.94 billion in 2017–18, or more than $6,600 per pupil. Reports of national school expenditures based on data from the CRDC are significantly lower than those estimated using the National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS) from the Common Core of Data (CCD). This could be attributed to data on spending for school nutrition, operations and maintenance, and transportation being captured in the NPEFS but not collected in the CRDC. However, the CRDC data allow for comparisons of public charter and noncharter schools at the school level. In 2017–18, spending among public noncharter schools fell just under the national average of $6,500 per pupil. Like other schools in the U.S. public school system, charter schools do not charge tuition and instead receive district and state funding based on their enrollment. Public charter schools spent more than $26.83 billion in 2017–18, or just more than $8,900 per pupil, thus exceeding the national average.

The per pupil school expenditures of public charter schools across school levels1 are different from those of public noncharter schools. This analysis compares spending between public elementary, middle, and high schools in 2017–18. (Mixed-level and other schools are excluded because they have variable grade levels and other characteristics that can make expenditures incomparable across school types.) Across school levels, per pupil expenditures among public charter schools exceeded the national average, while per pupil expenditures among public noncharter schools were closer to the national average. Specifically, for public charter schools, per pupil expenditures were highest for elementary schools ($8,400), followed by high schools ($8,200) and middle schools ($8,100) (figure 3). However, for public noncharter schools, per pupil expenditures were highest for high schools ($6,600), followed by elementary schools ($6,400) and middle schools ($6,100).

Figure 3. Per pupil public school expenditures, by public charter school status and school level: School year 2017–18  

Horizontal stacked bar chart showing per pupil public school expenditures, by public charter school status and school level, for school year 2017–18

 

NOTE: Rounded to nearest multiple of 100. Analytical universe restricted to charter schools in both the CRDC and CCD that could be linked or matched using unique identification numbers.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2017–18.

The CRDC splits school expenditures into personnel or staff expenditures (e.g., salaries of teachers and of instructional, support, and administrative staff) and nonpersonnel expenditures (e.g., the cost of books, computers, instructional supplies, and professional development for teachers). (Nonpersonnel expenditures do not include those for school nutrition, operations, maintenance, or transportation to and from school.) Figures 4 and 5 show that across school levels in 2017–18, both public charter and noncharter schools tended to spend more per pupil on salaries and less per pupil on nonpersonnel expenditures. The differences between public charter and noncharter schools are particularly noticeable in comparisons of nonpersonnel expenditures, where charter schools spent considerably more per pupil than noncharter schools, most prominently at the elementary school level ($3,400 vs. $800). The figures also show that among public charter schools, middle schools had higher salary expenditures but lower nonpersonnel expenditures than did elementary or high schools. These findings demonstrate the importance of considering school level when examining public charter school spending.

Figure 4. Per pupil public school salary expenditures, by public charter school status and school level: School year 2017–18

Horizontal stacked bar chart showing per pupil public school salary expenditures, by public charter school status and school level, for school year 2017–18

NOTE: Rounded to nearest multiple of 100. Analytical universe restricted to charter schools in both the CRDC and CCD that could be linked or matched using unique identification numbers.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2017–18.

Figure 5. Per pupil public school nonpersonnel expenditures, by public charter school status and school level: School year 2017–18

Horizontal stacked bar chart showing per pupil public school nonpersonnel expenditures, by public charter school status and school level, for school year 2017–18

NOTE: Rounded to nearest multiple of 100. Analytical universe restricted to charter schools in both the CRDC and CCD that could be linked or matched using unique identification numbers.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2017–18.

Thoughts for Future Research

Since 2009, the CRDC—a mandatory data collection—has collected school expenditure data from elementary and secondary public schools and school districts. The 2017–18 findings suggest that public charter schools spent nearly 200 to 300 percent more on nonpersonnel expenditures per pupil than did public noncharter schools. However, there are concerns about districts’ ability to accurately report school expenditure data, including those for public charter schools. While the CRDC is currently the only complete national database of school-level spending, the CCD has partial school-level fiscal data for about 30 states, and NCES is making an effort to increase this voluntary reporting. Future studies could include a more targeted analysis of spending among public charter schools by geographic settings, student enrollee characteristics, school size, and school type.

Civil Rights Data Collection

Since 1968, the U.S. Department of Education has collected data on key education and civil rights issues in our nation’s public schools. The CRDC collects a variety of information, including data on student enrollment and educational programs and services, most of which is disaggregated by race/ethnicity, sex, limited English proficiency, and disability. The CRDC informs the Office of Civil Rights’ overall strategy for administering and enforcing the civil rights statutes for which it is responsible. The CRDC collects data only from public schools (i.e., no data are collected from private schools). The CRDC data files can be found here: https://ocrdata.ed.gov/.

 

By Jennifer Hudson, Ph.D., and Jennifer Sable (AIR) and Christopher D. Hill, Ph.D. (NCES)

[1] For the purposes of this blog post, school-level categories are taken from the Documentation to NCES’ Common Core of Data for SY 2017–18:  “Elementary” includes schools with students enrolled in grades K through 4 that offer more elementary grades than middle grades. “Middle” includes schools with students enrolled in grades 5 through 8 that offer more middle grades than elementary or secondary grades. “High” include schools with students enrolled in grade 12 and other secondary grades that offer more high grades than middle grades.  “Other” includes schools with both elementary and high grades or grades at all three levels (elementary, middle, and high).

Summer Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic

June 15, 2022 NCES Blog Editor Findings, General Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

As the school year comes to a close, many families are considering opportunities to continue learning over the summer months. Summer learning has often been seen as a way to supplement instruction during the regular school year. The U.S. Department of Education’s “COVID-19 Handbook” notes that summer learning “can offer another opportunity to accelerate learning, especially for those students most impacted by disruptions to learning during the school year.” Data from the Household Pulse Survey (HPS), which NCES developed in partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau and other federal statistical agencies, explores access to summer learning opportunities by school type, racial/ethnic group, household educational attainment level, and income level.

The HPS1 provides data on how people’s lives have been impacted by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Phase 3.2 of the HPS introduced questions on the summer education activities of children enrolled in public or private school or homeschooled, following the end of the normal school year in spring 2021. Adults 18 years old and over who had children under 18 in the home enrolled in school were asked if any of the children had attended a traditional summer school program because of poor grades; attended a summer school program to help catch up with lost learning time during the pandemic; attended school-led summer camps for subjects like math, science, or reading; and/or worked with private tutors to help catch up with lost learning time during the pandemic. Adults were allowed to select all categories that applied. Data from Phase 3.2 of the HPS, covering September 15 to 27, 2021, are discussed in this blog post.

Among adults with children enrolled in public or private school or homeschooled, 26 percent reported children were enrolled in any summer education activities after the end of the normal school year in spring of 2021 (figure 1). The most reported summer education activity was attending a summer school program to catch up on lost learning time during the pandemic (10 percent). Eight percent reported children attended school-led summer camps for subjects like math, science, or reading and 7 percent each reported children attended a traditional summer school program because of poor grades or worked with private tutors to catch up with lost learning time during the pandemic.

Figure 1. Among adults 18 years old and over who had children under age 18 in the home enrolled in school, percentage reporting participation in summer education activities after the end of the normal school year in spring of 2021, by type of summer activity: September 15 to 27, 2021

Bar chart showing percentage of adults 18 years old and over who had children under age 18 in the home enrolled in school reporting participation in summer education activities after the end of the normal school year in Spring of 2021, by type of summer activity, from the September 15 to 27, 2021, phase of the Household Pulse Survey

1 Does not equal the total of the subcategories because respondents could report multiple types of summer education activities.
NOTE: Data in this figure are considered experimental and do not meet NCES standards for response rates. The 2021 Household Pulse Survey, an experimental data product, is an Interagency Federal Statistical Rapid Response Survey to Measure Household Experiences during the coronavirus pandemic, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau in partnership with 16 other federal agencies and offices. The number of respondents and response rate for the period reported in this table were 59,833 and 5.6 percent. The final weights are designed to produce estimates for the total persons age 18 and older living within housing units. These weights were created by adjusting the household level sampling base weights by various factors to account for nonresponse, adults per household, and coverage. For more information, see https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/household-pulse-survey/technical-documentation.html. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.  
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Household Pulse Survey, September 15 to 27, 2021. See Digest of Education Statistics 2021, table 227.60.

There were no significant differences in the overall percentage of adults reporting any summer education activities for their children by school type (public school, private school, or homeschooled). However, there were differences in the most common type of summer education activity reported for those with children in public school versus private school. Among adults with children in public school, the most reported summer activity was attending a summer school program to catch up with lost learning during the pandemic (11 percent) (figure 2). Among adults with children in private school, higher percentages reported children attended school-led summer camps for subjects like math, science, or reading or worked with private tutors to catch up with lost learning time during the pandemic (11 percent, each), compared with the percentage who reported children attended a traditional summer school program because of poor grades (3 percent). There were no significant differences among adults with homeschooled children by type of summer education activity.

Figure 2. Among adults 18 years old and over who had children under age 18 in the home enrolled in school, percentage reporting participation in summer education activities after the end of the normal school year in spring of 2021, by control of school and type of summer activity: September 15 to 27, 2021

Bar chart showing percentage of adults 18 years old and over who had children under age 18 in the home enrolled in school reporting participation in summer education activities after the end of the normal school year in Spring of 2021, by control of school and type of summer activity, from the September 15 to 27, 2021, phase of the Household Pulse Survey

NOTE: Figure excludes percentage of adults reporting any summer education activities for their children or that their children did not participate in any summer activities. Data in this figure are considered experimental and do not meet NCES standards for response rates. The 2021 Household Pulse Survey, an experimental data product, is an Interagency Federal Statistical Rapid Response Survey to Measure Household Experiences during the coronavirus pandemic, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau in partnership with 16 other federal agencies and offices. The number of respondents and response rate for the period reported in this table were 59,833 and 5.6 percent. The final weights are designed to produce estimates for the total persons age 18 and older living within housing units. These weights were created by adjusting the household level sampling base weights by various factors to account for nonresponse, adults per household, and coverage. For more information, see https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/household-pulse-survey/technical-documentation.html. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Household Pulse Survey, September 15 to 27, 2021. See Digest of Education Statistics 2021, table 227.60.

Children’s participation in any summer education activities in the summer of 2021 varied across racial/ethnic groups. The percentage of adults reporting any summer activities for their children was higher for Black adults (44 percent) than for all other racial/ethnic groups (figure 3). While lower than the percentage of Black adults reporting any summer activities for their children, the percentages of Asian and Hispanic adults (33 and 32 percent, respectively) were both higher than the percentage of White adults (20 percent).

Figure 3. Among adults 18 years old and over who had children under age 18 in the home enrolled in school, percentage reporting participation in any summer education activities after the end of the normal school year in spring of 2021, by adult’s race/ethnicity: September 15 to 27, 2021

Bar chart showing percentage of adults 18 years old and over who had children under age 18 in the home enrolled in school reporting participation in summer education activities after the end of the normal school year in Spring of 2021, by adult’s race/ethnicity, from the September 15 to 27, 2021, phase of the Household Pulse Survey

1 Includes persons reporting Pacific Islander alone, persons reporting American Indian/Alaska Native alone, and persons of Two or more races.
NOTE: Data in this figure are considered experimental and do not meet NCES standards for response rates. The 2021 Household Pulse Survey, an experimental data product, is an Interagency Federal Statistical Rapid Response Survey to Measure Household Experiences during the coronavirus pandemic, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau in partnership with 16 other federal agencies and offices. The number of respondents and response rate for the period reported in this table were 59,833 and 5.6 percent. The final weights are designed to produce estimates for the total persons age 18 and older living within housing units. These weights were created by adjusting the household level sampling base weights by various factors to account for nonresponse, adults per household, and coverage. For more information, see https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/household-pulse-survey/technical-documentation.html. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Household Pulse Survey, September 15 to 27, 2021. See Digest of Education Statistics 2021, table 227.60.            

There were also some differences observed in reported participation rates in summer education activities by the responding adult’s highest level of educational attainment. Children in households where the responding adult had completed less than high school were more likely to participate in summer education activities (39 percent) than were those in households where the responding adult had completed some college or an associate’s degree (25 percent), a bachelor’s degree (22 percent), or a graduate degree (25 percent) (figure 4). Similarly, children in households where the responding adult had completed high school2 were more likely to participate in summer education activities (28 percent) than were those in households where the responding adult had completed a bachelor’s degree (22 percent). There were no significant differences in children’s participation rates between other adult educational attainment levels.

Figure 4. Among adults 18 years old and over who had children under age 18 in the home enrolled in school, percentage reporting participation in any summer education activities after the end of the normal school year in spring of 2021, by adult’s highest level of educational attainment: September 15 to 27, 2021

Bar chart showing percentage of adults 18 years old and over who had children under age 18 in the home enrolled in school reporting participation in summer education activities after the end of the normal school year in Spring of 2021, by adult’s highest level of educational attainment, from the September 15 to 27, 2021, phase of the Household Pulse Survey

1 High school completers include those with a high school diploma as well as those with an alternative credential, such as a GED.
NOTE: Data in this figure are considered experimental and do not meet NCES standards for response rates. The 2021 Household Pulse Survey, an experimental data product, is an Interagency Federal Statistical Rapid Response Survey to Measure Household Experiences during the coronavirus pandemic, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau in partnership with 16 other federal agencies and offices. The number of respondents and response rate for the period reported in this table were 59,833 and 5.6 percent. The final weights are designed to produce estimates for the total persons age 18 and older living within housing units. These weights were created by adjusting the household level sampling base weights by various factors to account for nonresponse, adults per household, and coverage. For more information, see https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/household-pulse-survey/technical-documentation.html. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.  
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Household Pulse Survey, September 15 to 27, 2021. See Digest of Education Statistics 2021, table 227.60. 

The percentage of adults reporting that children participated in summer education activities also varied across households with different levels of income in 2020. The percentages of adults reporting that children participated in any summer education activities were higher for those with a 2020 household income of less than $25,000 (34 percent) and $25,000 to $49,999 (33 percent) than for all other higher household income levels. There were no significant differences in reported participation rates among adults with 2020 household income levels of $50,000 to $74,999, $75,000 to $99,999, $100,000 to $149,999, and $150,000 or more.

Learn more about the Household Pulse Survey and access data tables, public use files, and an interactive data tool. For more detailed data on the summer education activities discussed in this blog post, explore the Digest of Education Statistics, table 227.60. To access other data on how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted education, explore our School Pulse Panel dashboard.

Be sure to follow us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and YouTube to stay up-to-date on the latest findings and trends in education, including those on summer learning activities.

 

By Ashley Roberts, AIR

[1] The speed of the survey development and the pace of the data collection efforts led to policies and procedures for the experimental HPS that were not always consistent with traditional federal survey operations. For example, the timeline for the surveys meant that opportunities to follow up with nonrespondents were very limited. This has led to response rates of 1 to 10 percent, which are much lower than the typical target response rate set in most federal surveys. While the responses have been statistically adjusted so that they represent the nation and states in terms of geographic distribution, sex, race/ethnicity, age, and educational attainment, the impact of survey bias has not been fully explored.

[2] High school completers include those with a high school diploma as well as those with an alternative credential, such as a GED.

NCES Celebrates LGBTQ+ Pride Month

June 7, 2022 NCES Blog Editor Findings, General Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

June is LGBTQ+ Pride Month, and NCES is proud to share some of the work we have undertaken to collect data on the characteristics and well-being of sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations. Inclusion of questions about sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) on federal surveys allows for better understanding of SGM populations relative to the general population. These data meet critical needs to understand trends within larger population groups, and insights can lead to potential resources and interventions needed to better serve the community. Giving respondents the opportunity to describe themselves and bring their “whole self” to a questionnaire helps them to be seen and heard by researchers and policymakers.

Sometimes, we get asked why questions like this appear on an education survey. They can be sensitive questions for some people, after all. We ask these questions to be able to understand equity and outcomes related to education for these demographic characteristics, just as we do for other demographic information like race, ethnicity, household income, and what part of the country a student lives in. And just as for other demographic and background information, it is possible to have minority subgroups that might have different experiences than other subgroups. By sexual minorities, we mean people who report their sexual orientation to be something other than straight or heterosexual, and by gender minorities, we mean people whose sex as recorded at birth is different from their gender.

Over the past 10 years, NCES has researched how to best ask respondents about their sexual orientation and gender identity, how respondents react to these questions, and the quality of data that NCES has collected in questionnaires and datasets that include sexual identity and gender data.

At NCES, several studies include background questions for adults about their sexual orientation and gender identity. These are the High School Longitudinal Study: 2009 (HSLS:09) Second Follow-up in 2016, the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B) 08/18 and 16/21 collections, the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) in 2020, and the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS) 2020/22. The collection of these data allows NCES to describe the experiences of gender and sexual minority individuals. For example:

  • In 2020, students who identified as genderqueer, gender nonconforming, or a different identity had difficulty finding safe and stable housing at three times the rate (9 percent) of students who identified as male or female (3 percent each).1
  • In 2018, about 10 years after completing a 2007–08 bachelor’s degree, graduates who were gender minorities2 described their financial situations. Graduates who were gender minorities were less likely to own a home (31 percent) or hold a retirement account (74 percent) than graduates who were not gender minorities (63 percent and 87 percent, respectively) (figure 1).3
  • For 2008 bachelor’s degree graduates with a full-time job in 2018, straight people reported higher average salaries than either lesbian/gay or bisexual people.    
  • In the 2017–18 school year, 18 percent of public schools had a recognized student group that promoted the acceptance of students’ sexual orientation and gender identity, such as a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA). This was an increase from the 2015–16 school year, in which 12 percent of schools reported having a GSA.4

Figure 1. Percentage of 2007–08 bachelor’s degree recipients who owned a home, had a retirement account, reported negative net worth, and did not meet essential expenses in the past 12 months, by gender minority status in 2018

Bar chart showing the percentage of 2007–08 bachelor’s degree recipients who owned a home, had a retirement account, reported negative net worth, and did not meet essential expenses in the past 12 months, by gender minority status in 2018

NOTE: “Retirement account” includes both employer-based retirement accounts such as 401(k), 403(b), and pensions, and non-employer-based retirement accounts such as individual retirement accounts. Respondents are considered to have negative net worth if they would still be in debt after selling all their major possessions, turning all their investments and other assets into cash, and paying off as many debts as they could. “Did not meet essential expenses” refers to being unable to meet essential living expenses such as mortgage or rent payments, utility bills, or important medical care. “Past 12 months” refers to any of the 12 months preceding the interview. Gender minority indicates whether the respondent’s gender identity differed from the sex assigned at birth. Gender identity categories include male; female; transgender, male-to-female; transgender, female-to-male; genderqueer or gender nonconforming; a different gender identity; and more than one gender identity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2008/18 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:08/18).

NCES is committed to collecting data about equity in education and describing the experiences of SGM students, graduates, and educators.

To learn more about the research conducted at NCES and across the federal statistical system on the measurement of SOGI, please visit https://nces.ed.gov/FCSM/SOGI.asp.

 

By Maura Spiegelman and Elise Christopher, NCES

[1] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2019–20 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:20, preliminary data).

[2] On the NCES surveys mentioned above, gender identity categories include male; female; transgender, male-to-female; transgender, female-to-male; genderqueer or gender nonconforming; a different gender identity; and more than one gender identity.

[3] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2008/18 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:08/18).

[4] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2015–16 and 2017–18 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS).

Measuring “Traditional” and “Non-Traditional” Student Success in IPEDS: Data Insights from the IPEDS Outcome Measures (OM) Survey Component

May 12, 2022 NCES Blog Editor Findings, General Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

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).

Figure 1. Number and percentage distribution of degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students in the adjusted cohort, by Pell Grant recipient status, institutional level, and entering and attendance status: 2009–10 to 2012–13 adjusted cohorts

Stacked bar chart showing the number and percentage distribution of degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students by Pell Grant recipient status (recipients and non-recipients), institutional level (2-year and 4-year), and entering and attendance status (first-time/full-time, first-time/part-time, non-first-time/full-time, and non-first-time/part-time) for 2009–10 to 2012–13 adjusted cohorts

NOTE: This figure presents data collected from Title IV degree-granting institutions in the United States. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Outcome Measures component final data (2017­–19) and provisional data (2020).

What outcomes does Outcome Measures collect?

The OM survey component collects students’ highest credential earned (i.e., certificate, associate’s, or bachelor’s) at 4,3 6, and 8 years after entry. Additionally, for students who did not earn a credential by the 8-year status point, the survey component collects an enrollment status outcome (i.e., still enrolled at the institution, enrolled at another institution, or enrollment status unknown). Figure 2 shows these outcomes for the 2012–13 adjusted cohort.

Key takeaways:

  • The percentage of students earning an award (i.e., certificate, associate’s, or bachelor’s) was higher at each status point, with the greatest change occurring between the 4- and 6-year status points (a 7-percentage point change, from 32 percent to 39 percent).
  • At the 8-year status point, more than a quarter of students were still enrolled in higher education: 26 percent had “transferred-out” to enroll at another institution and 1 percent were still enrolled at their original institution. This enrollment status outcome fills an important gap left by the GR200 survey component, which does not collect information on students who do not earn an award 8 years after entry.

Figure 2. Number and percentage distribution of degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students, by award and enrollment status and entry status point: 2012–13 adjusted cohort

Waffle chart showing award status (certificate, associate’s, bachelor’s, and did not receive award) and enrollment status (still enrolled at institution, enrolled at another institution, and enrollment status unknown) of degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students, by status point (4-year, 6-year, and 8-year) for 2012–13 adjusted cohort

NOTE: One square represents 1 percent. This figure presents data collected from Title IV degree-granting institutions in the United States.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Outcome Measures component provisional data (2020).

How do Outcome Measures outcomes vary across student subgroups?

Every data element collected by the OM survey component (e.g., cohort counts, outcomes by time after entry) can be broken down into eight subcohorts based on entering, attendance, and Pell Grant recipient statuses. In addition to these student characteristics, data users can also segment these data by key institutional characteristics such as sector, Carnegie Classification, special mission (e.g., Historically Black College or University), and region, among others.4 Figure 3 displays the status of degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates 8 years after entry by each student subcohort within the broader 2012–13 degree/certificate-seeking cohort.

Key takeaways:

  • Of the eight OM subcohorts, FTFT non-Pell Grant recipients had the highest rate of earning an award or still being enrolled 8 years after entry. Among this subcohort, 18 percent had an unknown enrollment status 8 years after entry.
  • Among both Pell Grant recipients and non-Pell Grant recipients, full-time students had a higher rate than did part-time students of earning an award or still being enrolled 8 years after entry.
  • First-time, part-time (FTPT) students had the lowest rate of the subcohorts of earning a bachelor’s degree. One percent of FTPT Pell Grant recipients and 2 percent of FTPT non-Pell Grant recipients had earned a bachelor’s degree by the 8-year status point.

Figure 3. Number and percentage distribution of degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students 8 years after entry, by Pell Grant Recipient status, entering and attendance status, and award and enrollment status: 2012–13 adjusted cohort

Horizontal stacked bar chart showing award (certificate, associate’s, and bachelor’s) and enrollment statuses (still enrolled at institution, enrolled at another institution, and enrollment status unknown) of degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students by Pell Grant recipient status (recipients and non-recipients), institutional level (2-year and 4-year), and entering and attendance status (first-time/full-time, first-time/part-time, non-first-time/full-time, and non-first-time/part-time) for 2012–13 adjusted cohort

 

NOTE: This figure presents data collected from Title IV degree-granting institutions in the United States. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Outcome Measures component provisional data (2020).

How do Outcome Measures outcomes vary over time?

OM data are comparable across 4 cohort years.5 Figure 4 shows outcomes of degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates 8 years after entry from the 2009–10 cohort through the 2012–13 cohort for so-called “traditional” (i.e., FTFT) and “non-traditional” (i.e., non-FTFT) students.

Key takeaways:

  • For both traditional and non-traditional students, the percentage of students earning an award was higher for the 2012–13 cohort than for the 2009–10 cohort, climbing from 47 percent to 51 percent for traditional students and from 32 percent to 35 percent for non-traditional students.
  • The growth in award attainment for traditional students was driven by the share of students earning bachelor’s degrees (30 percent for the 2009–10 cohort vs. 35 percent for the 2012–13 cohort).
  • The growth in award attainment for non-traditional students was driven by the share of students earning both associate’s degrees (15 percent for the 2009–10 cohort vs. 16 percent for the 2012–13 cohort) and bachelor’s degrees (13 percent for the 2009–10 cohort vs. 15 percent for the 2012–13 cohort).

Figure 4. Number and percentage distribution of degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students 8 years after entry, by first-time, full-time (FTFT) status and award and enrollment status: 2009–10 to 2012–13 adjusted cohorts

Stacked bar chart showing award status (certificate, associate’s, and bachelor’s) and enrollment status (still enrolled at institution, enrolled at another institution, and enrollment status unknown) of degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students 8 years after entry by first-time, full-time status (traditional or first-time, full-time students and non-traditional or non-first-time, full-time students) for 2009–10 to 2012–13 adjusted cohorts

NOTE: This figure presents data collected from Title IV degree-granting institutions in the United States. “Non-traditional” (i.e., non-first-time, full-time) students include first-time, part-time, non-first-time, full-time, and non-first-time, part-time subcohorts. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Outcome Measures component final data (2017–2019) and provisional data (2020).

To learn more about the IPEDS OM survey component, visit the Measuring Student Success in IPEDS: Graduation Rates (GR), Graduation Rates 200% (GR200), and Outcome Measures (OM) resource page and the OM survey component webpage. Go to the IPEDS Use the Data page to explore IPEDS data through easy-to-use web tools, access data files to conduct your own analyses like those presented in this blog post, or view OM web tables.  

By McCall Pitcher, AIR

[1] The Federal Pell Grant Program (Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart I, as amended) provides grant assistance to eligible undergraduate postsecondary students with demonstrated financial need to help meet education expenses.

[2] Due to the 8-year measurement lag between initial cohort enrollment and student outcome reporting for the Outcome Measures survey component, the most recent cohort for which data are publicly available is 2012–13. Prior to the 2009–10 cohort, OM did not collect cohort subgroups by Pell Grant recipient status. Therefore, this analysis includes data only for the four most recent cohorts.

[3] The 4-year status point was added in the 2017–18 collection.

[4] Data users can explore available institutional variables on the IPEDS Use the Data webpage.

[5] For comparability purposes, this analysis relies on data from the 2017–18 collection (reflecting the 2009–10 adjusted cohort) through the 2020–21 collection (reflecting the 2012–13 adjusted cohort). Prior to the 2017–18 collection, OM cohorts were based on a fall term for academic reporters and a full year for program reporters.

Research Roundup: NCES Celebrates Women’s History Month

March 23, 2022 NCES Blog Editor Findings, General Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

In observation of Women’s History Month, this blog post presents NCES findings on the learning experiences of female students throughout their education careers as well as the characteristics of female teachers and faculty.

K–12 Education

  • In 2019, a larger percentage of U.S. female 12th graders (51 percent) than male 12th graders (42 percent) reported that they were somewhat or more likely to pursue a career in science. Explore more science assessment data from NAEP.
     
  • In 2017–18, women made up 89 percent of public school teachers at the elementary level, 72 percent at the middle school level, and 60 percent at the high school level. Explore more data about elementary and secondary school teachers by sex.

Postsecondary Education

Resources to Learn More

  • Undergraduate Enrollment (Condition of Education indicator): Learn how undergraduate female enrollment changed between 2009 and 2019.
     
  • Table 318.10 (Digest of Education Statistics): Explore how the number of degrees awarded to female students has changed since academic year 1869–70.
     
  • International Data Explorer (IDE): Learn about the education of women and girls across the world.


By Kyle Argueta, AIR