Bill Overview
Title: Graduation Reporting for Accuracy and Decision-Making Act
Description: This bill expands consumer information disclosure requirements related to student completion or graduation rates at institutions of higher education (IHEs) that participate in federal student-aid programs. Currently, such IHEs must disclose the completion or graduation rate of first-time, full-time, certificate- or degree-seeking undergraduate students. This bill expands disclosure requirements to include the completion or graduation rates of non-first-time and half-time certificate- or degree-seeking undergraduate students. The bill also sets forth new time periods for calculating the completion or graduation rates for programs of study that are less than four years.
Sponsors: Sen. Romney, Mitt [R-UT]
Target Audience
Population: Students at institutions of higher education (IHEs) participating in federal student-aid programs
Estimated Size: 6000000
- The bill affects institutions of higher education (IHEs) which receive federal student-aid, as they will need to collect and report more detailed data on graduation rates.
- Students at these IHEs, specifically non-first-time and half-time students, will have more transparency about educational outcomes.
- Prospective students and their families who use this data to make decisions about enrollment will be better informed.
- Policy makers and education analysts may also use this data to assess educational outcomes and make broader policy decisions.
- Employers seeking to evaluate potential candidates and their educational backgrounds may find expanded data helpful.
Reasoning
- The GRAD Act is likely to have varying impacts on different groups of students depending on their enrollment status. Full-time, first-time students may see little change, while part-time or non-traditional students will benefit more from increased transparency in graduation rates.
- Under the GRAD Act, the cost of implementing new reporting measures by IHEs may be significant, but within the budget allocation, given the scope of affected institutions. However, the knowledge benefit to students and policymakers can be substantial.
- The increased data on graduation rates provided by the policy will aid non-first-time students to better assess their chances of completion, impacting their decision-making processes and potentially their personal wellbeing.
- Prospective students and their families are likely to benefit as well by making more informed choices based on comprehensive graduation data, which could influence their long-term wellbeing positively.
- Given that the budget is restrictive, the impact might not be widespread across all IHEs initially, but the target demographic of 6 million aligns well with the priority population for the GRAD Act's impacts.
- Some segments of the population, including students not reliant on federal student-aid or from institutions that already disclose comprehensive data, may experience no significant change.
- Grades' records, job markets, and broader educational assessment may change over time as significant data becomes available, influencing both short-term and long-term outcomes for students.
Simulated Interviews
Part-time student (Texas)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The transparency from this new policy helps me understand if I'm making the right choice before transferring.
- Knowing graduation rates for part-time students like me helps set realistic expectations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Graduate student (California)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The data will allow future students like me to make better decisions.
- I think it will help prospective students assess risk and potentially save money.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Full-time student (New York)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional data will help part-time and returning students, which doesn't apply to me directly.
- It's good for my friends who are non-traditional students though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Part-time student and father (Illinois)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will help me assess graduation possibilities without having to rely only on the limited data we've had before.
- Knowing realistic chances is a great motivator.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Student-athlete (Ohio)
Age: 21 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not directly affected by this policy, I'm still interested if they publish graduation rates for student athletes.
- Any improvement in data transparency is beneficial in general, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Education analyst (Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With better data, our analyses of student success can be far more precise.
- This kind of policy supports our work on identifying high-performing programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Non-traditional student (North Carolina)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This data expansion makes re-engaging with education feel safer.
- It allows me to plan better knowing the realities of graduation rates for someone in my shoes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Employer (Pennsylvania)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved graduation rates data can help in filtering potential candidates.
- This adds a layer of confidence when considering an individual's educational background.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Policy maker (Georgia)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides comprehensive information which aids legislative decision-making.
- Developing more effective educational policies requires robust data like this.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
University administrator (Massachusetts)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementing this policy requires additional resources at our institution.
- However, it should ultimately improve our enrollment and student success data.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $75000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $90000000)
Year 3: $75000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $90000000)
Year 5: $80000000 (Low: $64000000, High: $96000000)
Year 10: $85000000 (Low: $68000000, High: $102000000)
Year 100: $85000000 (Low: $68000000, High: $102000000)
Key Considerations
- The immediate costs relate to system upgrades and compliance, which may decrease over time as systems become integrated and matured.
- Potential benefits include improved student and program performance data, leading to better policymaking and institutional strategies.
- Long-term educational and economic benefits are speculative and depend on the effective use of new data by stakeholders.