Do we need a national student record database?

YES
Jamie P. Merisotis
Policymakers need good data

Higher education institutions must demonstrate that they are effective stewards of the funds the federal government has invested in them, and that they are accountable specifically to the students they serve. Accountability begins with an efficient system of information that can be readily collected, easily understood and meaningfully applied to determine effective stewardship. Unfortunately, the current system of data collection and dissemination is fragmented and often burdensome on institutions, with little of the information used in an effective way by consumers or policymakers.

The emergence of a national debate about data-driven strategies and accountability systems has been important, but has not done nearly enough to take into account the complex circumstances under which today’s college students live their lives. The ideal of a normally persisting, well-advised, highly motivated student runs headlong into the stark reality of life in America today: prior educational deficiencies, family responsibilities, financial pressures, language and cultural barriers, and poor information and support systems. Until we grapple with these deeply rooted concerns, the national dialogue about accountability will, in my view, continue to reinforce the existing biases and underinvestments that have left us with a system divided into haves and have-nots.

An important first step in moving ahead will be to develop a national system of student-level data. This idea, first promoted on a large scale by the National Center for Education Statistics, could involve either a national system or a network of harmonized state systems—a more likely scenario, given that more than 40 states have some type of statewide student information system. I believe that such a system could be developed with limited risk to student privacy. An important first step would be to properly test and pilot a national student unit record system, perhaps using a voluntary group of institutions. The burden of transitioning to a new system is a legitimate concern, especially for smaller institutions. If such a system is implemented, it would be wise to provide limited financial support to institutions to help pay for the costs of system transition during a fixed period of time.

A privacy-protected information system that collects, analyzes and uses student-level data could provide enormously useful information about student attendance patterns, the net price students pay (as opposed to the sticker price, which is paid by a minority of students at many institutions), and persistence and graduation rates. This information could be used to develop more effective strategies to assist students in negotiating the complex landscape of higher education.

NO
Sherman Dorn
Students deserve their privacy

The U.S. Department of Education has based its call for a federal “unit record database” on the fact that college graduation measures are incomplete. Current measures count only full-time, first-time-in-college students, and they ignore transfers. As a result, colleges with high proportions of part-time and transfer students have so-called graduation rates that bear no resemblance to reality.

But a unit record database goes far beyond fixing graduation measures. Tell us everything about everyone, the database supporters say, and we will finally be able to tell you who graduates. As education researcher Clifford Adelman has written, the current federal measure is easily fixed without a Big Brother database. By changing a few definitions and by encouraging institutions to find former students through the National Student Clearinghouse, the Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange and interstate compacts, the federal government can have a better graduation measure without a unit record database. An anonymous diploma registration system (described at www.shermandorn.com/ADR/) would address the same problem in a different way. Either solution avoids the need to build yet one more database.

States already capture the college experiences of the majority of undergraduates in the state databases of public institutions. Having a federal database that tracks every student enrolled in every college and university would add only marginal value to the information that already exists. Furthermore, the current databases are difficult to use, and I have seen no evidence that researchers outside each state’s in-house staff have taken great advantage of them thus far.

Notably, the best research on college completion did not require unit record databases. Adelman’s study, “The Toolbox Revisited,” used the National Educational Longitudinal Sample, which followed 1988 eighth-graders through high school and early adulthood. National longitudinal studies are efficient uses of resources that can be checked for accuracy in many ways, with the confidentiality of participants protected far better than any unit record database.

And there should be no doubt that a national student database would endanger student privacy. An Oct. 13, 2006, report by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform documented data losses by 19 agencies, including financial aid records that the U.S. Department of Education is responsible for. Who trusts that the Education Department could keep records safe?