followed. The Committee, however, contains only one representative of a proprietary institution of higher education. The other 14 members include six college and university presidents, one vice chancellor of a community college system, two individuals currently or recently affiliated with presidents' associations and a university student. This is simply not reflective of the diversity of higher education today or of the types of institutions that most students are now attending beyond the secondary level. Although ACCSCT believes that its petition for recognition received fair consideration in this process and is pleased with its outcome, we believe that the Congress should more specifically mandate a proportionate representation of the different types of institutions of higher education that exist today. This will ensure not only that the breadth of higher education is accurately represented, but also that accrediting agencies are better held accountable by those with a wider and more relevant perspective. The Commission appreciates the invitation to present this information to the Subcommittee on these important subjects. I would be happy to respond to any questions the members of the Subcommittee may have. ACCSCT would also be pleased to provide additional information as the Subcommittee proceeds with its review of gatekeeping to the Title IV programs. ANALYSIS OF ANNUAL REPORT DATA Prepared for Accrediting Commission of Career Morgan V. Lewis Center on Education and Training for Employment 1900 Kenny Road April 1996 EXHIBIT A CHAPTER 3: MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF ANNUAL TOTAL DATA....... 17 Graduation Rates. Withdrawal Rates... Training-Related Placement Default Rates CHAPTER 4: COHORT DATA FOR THE 1994 SCHOOL YEAR.......... Summary Statistics One-to-One Correlations Multiple Regression Results CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS... Outcomes.... Student Characteristics.. REFERENCES... APPENDIX TABLES.. FOREWORD The Center on Education and Training for Employment is pleased to forward this report to the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology (ACCSCT). This is the third report on the performance of the schools and colleges accredited by the Commission. One of the methods the Commission uses to carry out its responsibilities is an annual report from each school or college. The information in this report enables the Commission to monitor operation and performance of these institutions. The data from the annual reports filed by all the accredited schools and colleges for the 1990 through the 1994 school years formed the basis for the present report. Preliminary analyses had been conducted with the reports for the prior three years. We hope that the results of these analyses can provide guides for future activities of the Accrediting Commission to improve the capacity of the schools and colleges it accredits to serve their students. This report was prepared by Dr. Morgan Lewis, a Research Scientist with CETE, with the assistance of Mr. Weidong Wang, a former Research Associate of CETE, who performed the many computer runs necessary for the analysis. Dr. Lewis has asked me to express his appreciation to those who contributed to the preparation of this report. First to the Accrediting Commission which funded the analysis and verification of the annual report data. Second, the staff of the Accrediting Commission, particularly Mr. Bruce Jenks, who has primary responsible for the collection and processing of the annual report data upon which the report is based, and acts as liaison with CETE. Third, the members of the Accrediting Commission, themselves, who contributed many helpful suggestions and insights regarding definitions, analyses, and interpretations of the findings, while allowing Dr. Lewis full control over the final contents of this report. I should add that while the Accrediting Commission provided the funding for the preparation of this report, its findings and conclusions are those of Dr. Lewis and not necessarily those of the Accrediting Commission, or our Center. Ray D. Ryan Executive Director Center on Education and Training for Employment 43-818 97-5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the third report of the performance of schools and colleges accredited by the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology during the five school years from 1990 through 1994. This report updates a previous report by adding an additional school year of data. The five years of cross-sectional data are based on the total number of students who graduated, withdrew, and obtained employment during the school year. These we refer to as the annual total data. This report differs from its two predecessors in that it also presents new longitudinal data on program completion and placement in related employment for defined groups of students. These we refer to as the cohort data. Cohort are groups of students who started their programs at points one and one-half times longer than the scheduled length of their programs. The results from students who met the cohort definition during the 1994 school year are presented in this report. The measures of the performance for both the annual total and cohort data were derived from the information in annual reports filed with the Accrediting Commission. For the annual report data, these measures are graduation, withdrawal, and training-related placement of the schools, calculated separately for full-time and part-time enrollments. Because of students who continue from one school year to another, in the annual total data withdrawal rates are not simply the reverse of graduation rates. For the cohort data, the measures are percentage trained and percentage placed in related employment. The cohort data includes students who withdrew because they obtained related employment in both of these measures. In the annual total data, almost two-thirds (63 to 65 percent) of the full-time students leaving the accredited schools and colleges graduated. About one-fifth (20 to 22 percent) of the students enrolled each year withdrew without completing their programs. A consistent threefourths of graduates (74 to 78 percent) found employment related to the skills they had studied; this figure is based on graduates who were available for employment. Each year 8 or 9 percent of graduates did not seek employment because they continued their education, entered the military, or had other documented reasons for not seeking jobs. For part-time students, the graduation and training-related employment rates were 10 to 12 percentage points lower than the rates for full-time students. Withdrawal rates for part-time students were 1 to 2 percentage points higher than the rates for full-time students. The default rates on Stafford loans for the students who had left the schools two years prior to the year analyzed fluctuated around 25 percent. |