[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76289-76291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30011]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2013-IES-0151]
Request for Information To Gather Technical Expertise Pertaining
to Data Elements, Metrics, Data Collection, Weighting, Scoring, and
Presentation of a Postsecondary Institution Ratings System
AGENCY: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences, Department of Education.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To assist the Department of Education (Department) in its
efforts to develop a Postsecondary Institution Ratings System (PIRS),
the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) invites the
submission of information about data elements, metrics, methods of data
collection, methods of weighting or scoring, and presentation
frameworks for a PIRS for assessing the performance of institutions of
higher education (IHEs) and advancing institutional accountability
while also enhancing consumer access to useful information.
DATES: Written submissions must be received by the Department on or
before January 31, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by email. To ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies, please submit your comments only one time. In
addition, please include the Docket ID and the term ``Postsecondary
Institution Ratings response'' at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on
the site under ``Are you new to this site?''
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you
mail or deliver your comments, address them to Richard Reeves, National
Center for Education Statistics, Attention: Postsecondary Institution
Ratings System RFI, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW.,
8th Floor, Washington, DC 20006.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments
received from members of the public (including comments submitted by
mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these
submissions available for public viewing in their entirety on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to include only information that they wish
to make publicly available on the Internet.
Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the subject matter,
some comments may include proprietary information as it relates to
confidential commercial information. The Freedom of Information Act
defines ``confidential commercial information'' as information the
disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause substantial
competitive harm. You may wish to request that we not disclose what you
regard as confidential commercial information.
To assist us in making a determination on your request, we
encourage you to identify any specific information in your comments
that you consider confidential commercial information. Please list the
information by page and paragraph numbers.
This is a request for information (RFI) only. This RFI is not a
request for proposals (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP or a notice
inviting applications (NIA). This RFI does not commit the Department to
contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Further, the Department
is not seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. The
Department will not pay for any information or administrative costs
that you may incur in responding to this RFI. If you do not respond to
this RFI, you may still apply for future contracts and grants. The
Department posts RFPs on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site
(http://www.fbo.gov). The Department announces grant competitions in
the Federal Register (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys). It is your
responsibility to monitor these sites to determine whether the
Department issues an RFP or NIA after considering the information
received in response to this RFI. The documents and information
submitted in response to this RFI become the property of the U.S.
Government and will not be returned.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Reeves, (202) 502-7436,
[email protected]. If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
A postsecondary education is among the most important investments
students can make in their own futures. However, obtaining such an
education has grown increasingly expensive. The average tuition at a
public four-year college has increased by more than 300 percent over
the past three decades, while incomes for typical families grew by only
16 percent, according to Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS) and Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Declining State funding
has moved an increasing share of the cost of postsecondary education
from State taxpayers to students; tuition has almost doubled as a share
of public college revenues over the past 25 years, from 25 percent to
47 percent. While a college education remains a valuable investment
overall, the average borrower with a bachelor's degree now graduates
with more than $29,400 in debt, according to 2012 data from the
National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. Moreover, college completion
rates are relatively low: only 58 percent of full-time students who
began college in 2004 earned a four-year degree within six years. Loan
default rates are rising, and many young adults are burdened with debt
as they seek to start a family, buy a home, launch a business, or save
for retirement.
The Department provides over $150 billion each year in student
financial aid, while States collectively invest over $70 billion in
public colleges and universities. Almost all of these resources are
allocated based on the number of students who enroll, not the number of
students who earn degrees, how much students learn, or the return on
investment to the students and society for the cost of their degrees.
In August 2013, President Obama announced a new agenda that will
increase college value and affordability for American families. As part
of this plan, the President has directed the Department to develop and
publish a new college ratings system before the 2015-16 school year.
The ratings system will help students compare the value and
affordability of
[[Page 76290]]
colleges and encourage colleges to improve. The ratings will be based
upon such measures as:
Access, such as percentage of students receiving Pell
grants;
Affordability, such as average cost of attendance,
scholarships, and student loan debt; and
Outcomes, such as graduation and transfer rates, including
those for Pell grant recipients, graduate earnings, and advanced degree
attainment of graduates.
The Department intends, through these ratings, to compare colleges
with similar missions and identify colleges that do the most to help
students from disadvantaged and underrepresented backgrounds, as well
as colleges that are improving their performance. The ratings system is
not intended to rank institutions. Instead, it will provide information
about an institution's performance on a specific measure or a specific
set of measures. In the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act, the President will propose allocating financial aid
based upon these college ratings by 2018.
Introduction
The Department invites IHEs and systems of IHEs, their faculty and
staff, students and parents, college counselors, research and data
experts, State higher education agencies, associations, advocacy
groups, think tanks, publishers, experts in ratings in other
industries, consortia of any of the above entities, or any other
interested party, to provide information about potential data elements,
metrics, methods of data collection and analysis, methods of weighting
or scoring, and presentation frameworks of a PIRS that will be used to
advance institutional accountability, enhance transparency, and improve
consumer decision-making. Organizations that have developed, or are
developing, ratings systems for postsecondary institutions or other
non-education entities are also strongly encouraged to respond. This
RFI is specifically inquiring into the following: (1) Metrics necessary
for rating the performance of postsecondary institutions using both
data elements currently available to the Department and other Federal
agencies, and data elements not currently available to the Department
or other Federal agencies but that could be collected in the future;
(2) empirical methods for weighting, scoring, or otherwise combining
the various metrics into a single dimension or a set of dimensions; (3)
empirical methods for weighting, scoring, or otherwise adjusting
metrics or grouping institutions to ensure appropriate comparison and
calibration within the PIRS; (4) options for presenting the information
in the PIRS for both accountability and consumer information purposes;
and (5) models of ratings systems for entities other than postsecondary
institutions. The Department is interested in a PIRS that takes into
account information important to the Federal government in promoting
college value and affordability, ensuring the integrity of Federal
student aid programs, and carrying out its fiduciary responsibility for
taxpayer investments in postsecondary education.
Through this RFI, the Department is interested in suggestions that
address the challenges in measuring the affordability and value of
postsecondary education. The Department is interested in specific
examples of ratings systems that best measure postsecondary
institutions' value to students and the Federal taxpayer. The
Department is also interested in specific examples of empirical methods
for taking into account the diversity of institutional missions and for
comparing performance across similar institutions. In particular, the
Department is interested in how such factors as institutional resources
(e.g., State investment in postsecondary education) and student
characteristics (e.g., postsecondary readiness) should be addressed as
part of the ratings system. Finally, the Department is interested in
specific suggestions for minimizing unintended consequences such as the
undervaluing of certain kinds of postsecondary credentials or learning
experiences or creating disincentives for institutions to enroll
underrepresented student populations.
Information gathered through this RFI will inform the development
of a PIRS designed to advance institutional accountability for the
investment of Federal dollars in IHEs while at the same time improving
public information about college access, affordability, and outcomes
for students and families.
In addition to significant outreach that the Department is
conducting to communities and stakeholder groups throughout the
country, development of a PIRS will employ three specific steps. First,
NCES is issuing this RFI to collect information about data elements,
metrics, methods of data collection, methods of weighting or scoring,
and presentation frameworks. We pose a series of questions to which we
invite interested parties and members of the public to respond. Second,
NCES will host a symposium of external experts to discuss and
deliberate on these issues in greater depth. Third, NCES will publish a
summary of the recommendations developed from the RFI and the
symposium, as well as other resources identified by symposium
participants, on the Department's college affordability and completion
Web site (http://www.ed.gov/college-affordability).
Context for Responses
The primary goal of this RFI is to gather information that will
help the Department develop a PIRS that advances the accountability of
postsecondary institutions and that provides enhanced transparency and
consumer information. We have developed several questions to guide
input. Because the questions are only guides, you do not have to
respond to the specific questions and you may provide comments in a
format of your choice. However, we strongly recommend that you provide
specific examples in your responses. You may also provide information
that is not responsive to a particular question but may be helpful.
Questions
1. Questions Regarding Data Elements, Metrics, and Data Collection
1.1. Using data currently collected by the Department or other
Federal agencies, and given the Administration's focus on access,
affordability, and outcomes, what metrics are possible for rating the
performance of postsecondary institutions? What metrics are appropriate
for consumer information purposes? What metrics are appropriate for
accountability purposes? What metrics are appropriate for consumer
information and accountability purposes? For each metric, include
information about data sources, quality, availability, and limitations.
1.2 Using data not currently collected by the Department or other
Federal agencies, and given the Administration's focus on access,
affordability, and outcomes, what metrics are possible for rating the
performance of postsecondary institutions? What metrics are appropriate
for consumer information purposes? What metrics are appropriate for
accountability purposes? What metrics are appropriate for consumer
information and accountability purposes? What is the best way to
collect data that will inform those metrics? What are the challenges in
collecting such data?
1.3 What metrics should apply to all types of postsecondary
institutions?
[[Page 76291]]
1.4 What metrics should apply to institutions with specific
missions? How should those missions be defined?
1.5 How should existing limitations in Federal postsecondary data
and data collections be addressed?
2. Questions Regarding Weighting or Scoring
2.1 What empirical methods for weighting, scoring, or otherwise
reducing a large and complex amount of information into a single
dimension or a set of dimensions should be used in a PIRS?
2.2 What empirical methods for weighting or scoring are appropriate
for consumer information purposes?
2.3 What empirical methods for weighting or scoring are appropriate
for accountability purposes?
2.4 What empirical methods for weighting or scoring are appropriate
for both purposes?
2.5 How should metrics be adjusted to account for institutional
differences, such as mission, and student characteristics? How should
those characteristics be defined?
2.6 How should metrics be adjusted to reflect institutional
improvement over time?
3. Questions Regarding the Development of Comparison Groups
3.1 What empirical methods for developing institutional comparison
groups are appropriate for consumer information purposes?
3.2 What empirical methods for developing institutional comparison
groups are appropriate for accountability purposes?
3.3 What empirical methods for developing institutional comparison
groups are appropriate for both purposes?
3.4 Should students be disaggregated for comparison purposes and if
so, by what sub-groups?
4. Questions Regarding the Presentation of Ratings Information
4.1 What models for presenting institutional ratings are
appropriate for consumer information purposes?
4.2 What models for presenting institutional ratings are
appropriate for accountability purposes?
4.3 What models for presenting institutional ratings are
appropriate for motivating consumers to make choices that promote
institutional accountability?
4.4 How could the PIRS strengthen States' and others' oversight and
fiduciary responsibility for postsecondary education?
5. Questions Regarding Existing Ratings Systems
5.1 What are examples of systems used to rate the performance of
other types of entities or services that could be used to inform the
development of a PIRS?
5.2 What examples of existing ratings systems used to rate the
performance of postsecondary institutions could be used to inform the
development of a PIRS? What lessons learned from existing systems could
inform a PIRS?
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request from Warren Farr at (202) 377-
4380 or [email protected].
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3402(4).
John Q. Easton,
Director, Institute of Education Sciences.
[FR Doc. 2013-30011 Filed 12-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P