Reading time: Five minutes

Artificial intelligence (AI) is everywhere these days across a broad range of arenas and use cases, including postsecondary advising. The media has recently focused on AI for college search, with both the New York Times and Inside Higher Ed examining the topic. The National College Attainment Network (NCAN) and many members are interested in this use case and how AI can be, and is being, used in our field more broadly.

To better understand NCAN members’ sentiments toward AI for postsecondary advising, we fielded a survey in December and January. The survey yielded 103 respondents who weighed in on their trust of AI, its benefits and risks, and how NCAN can support their learning.

(As a sidenote, we’re very grateful to those who did respond to the survey, but I stress that when we field surveys, we really need members to lean in and respond. The information is invaluable for our programming!)

Here are some of the key takeaways from the survey results:

• Who responded:
  • Organization Type: Nearly 70% of respondents were from community-based organizations, with state agencies and K-12 public, charter, or private schools/districts/networks making up the largest portion of the remainder.
  • Role: About 40% of respondents were program managers or directors, 30% were direct service providers (e.g., advisors, counselors, coaches), and 15% executives or senior leaders.
  • Familiarity: 50% of respondents self-identified as novices with AI for advising while about 40% said they had an intermediate level of familiarity. Respondents who were not at all familiar (8%) and experts (4%) were in the tails.
• Outlook for AI: 62% of respondents said that they were at least somewhat optimistic about the future of AI in postsecondary advising; just 17% said they were at least somewhat pessimistic.
• Trust for AI in advising: Respondents were largely neutral on their trust of AI generally. On a scale of one to five from do not trust at all to completely trust, respondents averaged a three for “neutral.” That result was the same around trust in AI to support college and career readiness advising. Broken out by role and looking at respondents who said they at least “somewhat trust” AI-powered tools generally, direct student service respondents (27%) had the lowest proportion followed by program managers/directors (36%), and executive or senior leaders (63%).

The survey also asked respondents to describe their level of trust in AI-powered tools to support various aspects of college and career (CCR) advising. Student nudges or reminders (85%) were by far the activity to earn at least a “somewhat trust” rating with career exploration and goal setting and tracking close behind. Notably, as the “stakes” of the activities increase in the chart below (like for example FAFSA, or Free Application for Federal Student Aid, completion or risk intervention) the level of trust in AI to perform the activity decreases.

• AI’s role in CCR advising: Most respondents see AI as more of a supporting player. Asked, “which best describes your preferred role for AI in CCR advising?” 43% said “AI should play a minor role, with advising led by advisors/caring adults.” Right behind that, 42% said “AI should enable advisors to focus on deeper student engagement.” Notably, those two responses aren’t mutually exclusive, so there’s a lot of agreement in this vision of AI as a tool. 14% of respondents said that human advisors and AI should share advising roles equally, and just 2% of respondents said AI should not be used in CCR advising at all.
  
  
• Current uses of AI: Chatbots were the most frequently selected approach respondents were currently using or exploring. Respondents were more likely to say they weren’t using or exploring any tools than to select any of the others on the list .

• Benefits of AI: Respondents cited “increased efficiency and time savings for advisors and students,” “extended advising reach,” and “improved use of data for decision-making” as the top benefits they see for using AI for CCR advising. This makes some sense, given the processing efficiencies that are a hallmark of these platforms. On the other end of the spectrum, “increased student agency” and “increased student engagement” were the least cited benefits.

• Concerns: Respondents also raised some concerns with AI for CCR advising, none of which is altogether surprising with the most common concerns voiced about these platforms in the broader world or other fields. Respondents were most likely to cite “inaccurate or inappropriate outputs,” “bias in AI-generated recommendations,” and “data privacy or misuse” as concerns.

• What’s needed for greater trust: Lastly, we asked respondents what would increase their trust in using AI-enabled tools for CCR advising. Training for staff on how to use AI came in at the top for this item, more on that in a moment. Respondents also sought the ability to customize or override AI decisions and clearer transparency into how AI makes decisions.

 

Speaking of training, NCAN will host a four-part Spring Institute on AI in College Access that starts on April 23 and runs weekly through May. We are building an excellent series of trainings that will bring in both the nuts and bolts and member perspectives on how these tools are accelerating postsecondary advising for students. Additionally, NCAN members can you the NCAN Online Practitioner Community (based in Slack ) to chat and compare notes on AI.

Back to the survey, the hope is that the results above will be illuminating about the sentiments and use cases NCAN members have for AI. This is not the last time NCAN will solicit member feedback about AI, far from it, but as we embark on this important body of work NCAN wanted to establish a baseline upon which to measure changes in members’ perspectives.

Have questions or concerns you’d like to share? I’d love to hear from you! Please reach out at debaunb@ncan.org!

Read More:

• New Data Shows High School Leaders Can Do More to Achieve College and Career Readiness Goals
• 10 Projects Funded to Expand Postsecondary Outcomes Data Usage
• Reduce Summer Melt with Evidence-Based Approaches

Reading time: Seven minutes

I’m not on a limb here when I say that principals have a big impact on the direction of their school buildings. What they believe in and act on matters a lot for the experience of the staff and students they serve. That’s especially true around college and career readiness (CCR). The National College Attainment Network (NCAN) has highlighted data from the RAND Corporation’s American School Leaders Panel (ASLP) before, published as part of the American Mathematic Educator Study.

I’m back again with even more insights from the 2025 administration of this survey, which were recently published in “How High School Principals Support College and Career Readiness.”

The TLDR here from the report is illuminating, and distressing (emphasis mine): “Our findings indicate that most high school principals set goals for CCR, but those goals lack specificity. Most principals try to offer a sequence of CCR activities in 9th through 12th grade, but they most consistently offer access to advising. Additionally, principals seem to struggle with executing all aspects of a comprehensive CCR strategy.”

School leaders (and all school staff) have a lot on their plates, I get it, but this data reveals some actionable gaps that can help connect students with their next, best step.

1. Most principals say they have goals around CCR, but fewer than half say their school actually has a shared CCR vision

Only 43% of principals reported that their school has a shared college and career readiness culture organized around a common vision. (More specifically, 43% said their school was “similar” to school that does so). Contrast that with goals around specific components of CCR being much more common (e.g., FAFSA, or Free Application for Federal Student Aid, completion, advising, dual enrollment). This suggests many schools are operating with activity but not alignment, and may be falling into what Andy Schmitz and I recently called fragmentation.

2. FAFSA completion is a goal almost everywhere, but it rarely has a target

77% of principals said FAFSA completion is a goal at their school, but only 46% set a numeric target. More states than ever are sharing student-level FAFSA completion data with districts and schools, being able to measure completion more effectively lends itself toward goal-setting. Let’s not have goals without accountability.

3. High schools focus far more on getting students in than getting them through

Less than half of principals reported a goal related to college completion six years after graduation compared to nearly 70% who have college enrollment as a goal. This reinforces a long-standing challenge for the transition out of K-12: the high school graduation stage as the water’s edge. After all, there’s always a “next class up.” Just 22% and 14% had numerical enrollment and completion targets, respectively. It’s hard to set targets against data you don’t have, and states need to lean into sharing postsecondary outcomes data back to districts if districts and schools aren’t going to get this data themselves (likely through the National Student Clearinghouse).

Source: Leigh, Elaine W., Christine Mulhern, Min Jung Kim, Jessica Randazzo, and Elizabeth D. Steiner, How High School Principals Support College and Career Readiness: Findings from the 2025 American Mathematics Educator Study. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2026. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4411-2.html.

4. Only 27% of principals say they are doing all three “core” CCR things well

Just over one quarter of principals reported having a shared vision, a sequenced CCR plan from grades 9–12, and regular access to advising. For the rest, something is slipping. This validates an emphasis on systems over programs and explains why isolated initiatives often fail to move outcomes. (For reference, 21% of principals said they did none of these things, 23% reported doing one, 29% reported doing two.)

5. More than half of principals report sequencing their CCR offerings; NCAN is working to grow that number

60% of principals said they intentionally sequence CCR activities across grades. The high-quality postsecondary advising framework released by Drs. Janice Bloom and Mandy Savitz-Romer last year explicitly rejects episodic advising, so 60% is a foundation upon which to build. Four in 10 principals reporting not sequencing CCR offerings shows we’ve got room for improvement.

6. “One-on-one advising” is common, but often disconnected from a broader strategy

Three-quarters of principals named scheduled one-on-one meetings as a top advising method. The next two strategies were “e-mails, flyers, or texts sent to students and their families” and “periodic or one-time events.” This trio doesn’t exactly scream “coherence.” In future administrations, we’ll hope to see activities like “regularly scheduled advisory period” and “monthly programming on related topics” move up the ranks.

Source: Ibid.

7. Teachers are contributing to lifting the CCR load

Nearly half of principals said classroom teachers strongly influence CCR advising. Interviews conducted with ASLP respondents revealed heavy reliance on advisory periods, homeroom, and push-in lessons. This underscores the importance of professional development and role clarity as enabling conditions (as noted in this district enabling conditions framework). It’s also encouraging news given the frequent finding that school counselors are shouldering a tremendous amount of this CCR work.

8. District support is the difference between coherence and chaos

Principals with stronger CCR coherence consistently cited district funding, staffing, and policy alignment. NCAN and many of our national partners released a framework for how districts can enable postsecondary success. Surprise! It includes emphases on district-level vision setting, capacity building, resource provision, and collaboration. This finding directly supports the framework’s argument that high-quality advising cannot be built school by school in isolation.

Source: Ibid.

9. Principals want postsecondary outcomes data and cannot easily get it; that’s bad for providing quality advising

Principals have a good handle on the milestone data that occurs while students are with them but limited line of sight beyond that. “Most principals tracked postsecondary goals and outcomes, such as intended academic major, FAFSA completion, college acceptances, and senior exit surveys, but they faced challenges with follow-up after more than one year. They used credit accumulation and “on-track to graduate” statuses to guide counselor interventions and to make changes to course pathways.” How are school leaders supposed to guide current and prospective classes successfully without knowing what happened to future classes? Schools are flying blind about whether their advising actually works.

10. High-poverty schools are more likely to set CCR goals, not less

Contrary to common narratives, principals in high-poverty schools were more likely to report CCR goal-setting and shared culture, according to data from the ASLP. This suggests the challenge is not will, awareness, or understanding of why postsecondary advising is important but instead the capacity and structural support to make them the fullest reality.

And here’s the home stretch (at least for this iteration of findings from the ASLP).

11. Ultimately, principals think their CCR systems are more coherent than the evidence suggests

In interviews, principals rated their CCR coherence a 7 out of 10 on average. But in surveys only 27% of principals met all three core criteria (a shared vision, a sequenced CCR plan from grades 9–12, and regular access to advising). We can debate whether these components are the right ones by which to define “coherence,” but it’s inarguable each is critical. This perception gap is one of the most important takeaways for policymakers and funders: good intentions do not equal strong systems.

RAND’s most recent report is a rich vein to mine on how school leaders can further advance college and career readiness in their school building. These insights are a good start, but there’s surely more to learn. NCAN looks forward to continuing to highlight the most actionable takeaways from this important data source.

Disclosure: The author is a paid advisor on the Pathways section of the American Mathematics Educator Study and had input on the surveys items in the ASLP. The content here does not reflect the views and opinions of the RAND Corporation.

Read More:

• 10 Projects Funded to Expand Postsecondary Outcomes Data Usage
• Reduce Summer Melt with Evidence-Based Approaches
• Undergrad Enrollment Ticks Up 2.4% in Fall 2025

Reading time: Six minutes

States must do better on sharing postsecondary outcomes data with district and school professionals and the public. Last fall, the National College Attainment Network (NCAN) analyzed how state agencies are using their National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) contracts to get critical information in the hands of school leaders, school counselors, and other adults with an interest in students’ postsecondary pathways.

NCAN has previously highlighted the work of Quality Information Partners (QIP), which in addition to case studies of promising postsecondary outcomes data sharing, maintains a community of practice on the topic and has established an Action Fund to support promising projects to spur greater data access and usage at the local level.

Proposals came in a wide variety of scopes and approaches from an equally varied mix of local, regional, and state nonprofit and agency stakeholders. After a three-phase process, 10 projects were selected to move forward to the award phase, and awardees now have an approximately 18-month window to fulfill their scope. Administration of the funds is being managed by the Council of Chief State School Officers.

The selected projects include:

Arizona Department of Education*

The Arizona Department of Education will create a Student Success Dashboard that will offer a cohesive view of data from many different systems, including AzEDS, Arizona’s agency student data collection system, the Career and Technical Education (CTE) Portal, NSC, and workforce attainment data. The dashboard will unify data across grades 9-12, CTE, postsecondary, assessment, and workforce systems, creating a single, actionable interface for those working most closely with students

Education Forward Arizona*

Education Forward Arizona will begin development and delivery of three-to-four asynchronous College and Career Advising Professional (CAP) Training courses. These courses will build the capacity of at least 150 Arizona school counselors, educators, administrators, and college access professionals, particularly those serving under-resourced communities. The content will be designed to help educators

• Understand existing postsecondary data sources and what they measure;
• Recognize the value of these data for improving student outcomes;
• Develop skills in analyzing and interpreting data;
• Apply data insights to create more meaningful, equitable, and intentional postsecondary advising structures and career and college readiness (CCR) programming; and
• Establish and strengthen school-level data tracking systems to inform ongoing CCR efforts.

CT RISE Network

CT RISE will develop and deploy new data tools, built on the RISE Data Hub, to help educators identify and support seniors who intend to enroll in two-year colleges. The tools will match student intentions with NSC enrollment records and present cohort- and student-level views to close visibility gaps. The tools will aggregate intention and follow-through data (e.g., college applications, Free Application for Student Aid (FAFSA) submission, enrollment records), enabling counselors and administrators to better target interventions in a timely manner.  

DC Office of Education Through Employment Pathways (ETEP)

When schools are introduced to new data sources, they often struggle with translating the information into actionable and sustainable changes. ETEP has developed the Education Through Employment Data System, which will allow the district to understand for the first time how education and workforce programs impact long-term student outcomes, and which supports are most effective in placing students on pathways to economic mobility and disrupting patterns of inequity. To maximize this new information, ETEP has partnered with EmpowerK12, a DC nonprofit with a history of working closely with schools. This project proposes developing data tools paired with training for local education agencies (LEAs) and schools to learn about the new information available and how it can inform their work.

Delaware Higher Education Office (DHEO)* 

This project aims to create a virtual infrastructure that supports the analysis of pathways Delaware students take and, importantly, the identification of actionable barriers that limit students’ progress toward long-term college and career goals. To meet these aims, DHEO will direct the integration of siloed data, the expansion of PowerBI dashboard capability, the development of technical materials (e.g., data entry manuals, data codebooks, PowerBI guides), the rollout of training workshops and communication toolkits to support LEA administrators and high school staff in the use of the dashboard to generate local insights and to distribute information targeted to the unique needs of various stakeholders and student populations.   

Iowa Postsecondary Attainment Institute*

Iowa currently provides FAFSA completion data to schools through its Google FAFSA Distribution System, delivering weekly student-level reports to all public and participating private schools in Iowa. This project will build on that infrastructure by integrating additional key postsecondary outcome data, providing a unified, automated platform that delivers real-time, student-level reports directly to school counselors and administrators. By expanding beyond FAFSA completion data, the platform will offer a more comprehensive view of students’ postsecondary trajectories—helping schools better support students throughout the transition to higher education.

The Postsecondary Attainment Institute will work with the Iowa Department of Education’s research and data teams to integrate high school enrollment and NSC data into the reports. It will also build on current agreements with Iowa high schools that already actively participate in the weekly FAFSA data reporting system

Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE)

CPE will enhance its Futuriti.org platform by integrating a Kentucky-specific living wage calculator that allows users to explore the relationship between career choices, education levels, income, and cost of living. The new feature will be built using Kentucky postsecondary outcomes and wage data from the Kentucky Longitudinal Data System (KLDS). It will include location-based calculators that allow students to “predict” earnings and understand how education affects income potential. 

Maryland Longitudinal Data System Center (MLDSC)

The MLDSC will develop the Maryland Postsecondary Academic and Workforce Explorer (MD-PAWE), a data-driven tool aimed at supporting high school students, particularly those not pursuing a traditional college path, in making informed career and education decisions. This initiative will leverage existing infrastructure, technical capacity, and governance structures, including data such as wages for graduates disaggregated by academic or calendar year, as well as by industry in which the graduates are employed. The tables in the explorer may be further disaggregated by institution, degree attainment, major, race, ethnicity, gender, and residency at the time of enrollment in college.

Missouri College and Career Attainment Network (MOCAN)*

This project will develop a Postsecondary Outcomes Dashboard that will translate NSC data into actionable insights at the school building level; be piloted in partnership with Kansas City (MO) Public Schools and later expand statewide; include training and convenings to build capacity among school counselors, administrators, and community partners; and support evidence-based planning aligned with ICAP and other state and district priorities.

Virginia Tribal Education Consortium (VTEC)

VTEC will launch the first secure, interactive data dashboard disaggregated by tribal affiliation. This tool will empower the seven federally recognized Virginia tribes with real-time, student-level insights into postsecondary success patterns; support tribal consultation, school staff training, and family engagement to boost advising and postsecondary planning; and increase data sovereignty by placing access and interpretation power directly in tribal hands. 

Five of the awardees above, those marked with an asterisk, are NCAN members (and of course, NCAN would love to earn the remaining five awardees’ membership). NCAN will continue to partner with QIP to share findings and highlights from this important body of work and to push for more states to think creatively about, and lean into, more effectively sharing postsecondary outcomes data with practitioners and the public and spurring that data’s use by the same.

Read More:

• Report: States Can Improve Postsecondary Outcomes Data Sharing; Here’s How
• Reduce Summer Melt with Evidence-Based Approaches
• Undergrad Enrollment Ticks Up 2.4% in Fall 2025

Reading time: Seven minutes

A new EdResearch for Action brief outlines how schools and districts can design and deliver supports to ensure college-intending high school graduates successfully enroll in college.

Each year, thousands of high school graduates who intend to go to college never make it to campus, a phenomenon known as summer melt. Nationally, about 10% to 20% of college-intending students fail to enroll in the fall. Among low-income students, melt rates are significantly higher.

Students who do not enroll in college the fall after high school are much less likely to re-enroll later, which limits their long-term economic prospects and deepens systemic inequities in education and the workforce. While college might not be the best path for everyone, postsecondary education remains a powerful driver of economic security and opportunity. Furthermore, between 10 and 17% of young adults ages 18 to 25 in the US have been disconnected from both school and work, neither enrolled in school nor working, in the past decade.

In a recent EdResearch for Action brief, we outlined design principles and evidence-based practices for schools and districts to reduce summer melt. Our findings are below! The kinds of supports described in this brief could make a meaningful difference for many of these young people, helping them access college and expand their opportunities for the future.

What causes summer melt?

There are several roadblocks that can cause summer melt. Many students struggle to interpret financial aid award forms and letters or are caught off guard by unanticipated costs, such as housing deposits, meal plans, or student health insurance. Others believe their aid is finalized when key forms or verifications are still incomplete. These financial uncertainties can delay or derail enrollment decisions, especially for students with limited family support to navigate the process.

Even when students are confident they can afford college, students must navigate complex and unfamiliar enrollment tasks: submitting forms, signing up for orientation, completing placement tests, and more. Without support from high school counselors or clear communication from colleges during the summer months, many students miss key deadlines or get stuck trying to access portals and complete tasks.

Finally, students may face social and emotional barriers to enrollment. Shocks from disruptive events, feelings of uncertainty, impostor syndrome, fear of leaving home, or doubts about whether college is "for them" can grow during the summer. These internal hurdles can be especially powerful for first-generation college-goers and those without strong networks of college-going peers.

Who should “own” summer melt work?

While summer melt occurs in the “gap” between high school and college, both districts and colleges have critical roles to play in supporting students through this transition. Districts are well-positioned to reach recent graduates because they already have the data, relationships, and communication infrastructure to stay connected with students. Colleges, in turn, have better insight into the tasks students must complete before enrollment and can tailor outreach to students’ specific needs and milestones.

How can districts assess the extent of summer melt for their students?

Districts can’t intervene if they don’t have good data on students’ risk of melting. Senior exit surveys, especially when completed close to graduation, can capture students’ plans, deposit status, and summer contact information. When student exit surveys aren't available, school counselors could assemble their own records on students’ reported college-going plans.

Districts can then compare these intention measures with enrollment records from the National Student Clearinghouse, or partnerships with local colleges can help districts estimate melt rates and target support for subsequent cohorts of students.

What strategies can schools and districts implement to reduce summer melt?

We identified four primary models with strong evidence of reducing summer melt by targeting a combination of

1. Reducing financial aid uncertainties,
2. Supporting the completion of complex pre-enrollment tasks, and
3. Helping students overcome social and emotional barriers.

Behavioral Nudges and Messaging

These programs use text message communication or other digital tools to deliver timely reminders and task-specific guidance. They are highly scalable and cost-effective. Randomized controlled trails (RCTs) have found that text messaging campaigns can reduce summer melt by up to 10 percentage points. Example programs include the “Pounce” summer melt chatbot at Georgia State University, the OtterBot chatbot used by the Washington Student Achievement Council, and a text message campaign from Texas school districts that increased students’ completion of college-going steps and increased enrollment for students who did not qualify for free and reduced-price lunch.

Counselor-Led Summer Outreach

Staff (often school counselors or trained advisors) conduct one-on-one outreach during the summer to help students navigate and complete critical college enrollment steps. RCTs have found that students who received counselor-led outreach starting in their junior year were seven percentage points more likely to enroll in college than those who did not. Example programs include a counseling partnership between Albuquerque Public Schools and the University of New Mexico that increased enrollment for Latino males.

Peer or Near-Peer Support

These programs rely on current college students or recent graduates to guide students through summer tasks, leveraging relatability and lived experience. RCTs have found that peer and near-peer mentors increase four-year college enrollment and are especially impactful for Black, Latino/a, and low-income students. High schools are well-positioned to identify recent graduates who have enrolled in college and can serve as mentors to current high school students.

Summer-Bridge Programs

These are pre-college academic or orientation programs offered during the summer to prepare students for the transition to college. Evidence shows that summer bridge programs can boost academic preparedness, increase student aspirations, and improve college completion. While these programs typically are run by and housed on college campuses, high schools and districts can play a crucial role in establishing partnerships with local institutions and providing insights into the bridge activities that would be most useful for their student populations.

Design principles for reducing summer melt

Whether implementing text-message outreach or a summer bridge partnership, we identified key design principles for districts and partners to follow that will improve the likelihood of reducing summer melt.

Content

1. Start early and extend support beyond graduation
   Effective programs start as early as junior year and extend into the post-graduation period, when traditional guidance structures fade and students face critical next steps on their own.
   
   
2. Focus supports on students most at risk
   Students from low-income families, first-generation college-goers, and those attending community colleges face the highest melt rates. Targeting these students ensures limited resources are allocated where they are needed most.
   
   
3. Provide clear, proactive financial guidance
   Confusion about financial aid, housing, or registration often derails students. Proactive, easy-to-understand communication, especially in students’ home languages, about aid packages, required documents, and key deadlines can be effective at keeping students on track.

Delivery

1. Build trust between support providers and students
   Students are more likely to respond to support from people and institutions they know, relate to, or affiliate with. Successful programs build on existing trust by training school counselors, hiring recent alumni as mentors, or partnering with college staff to offer credible, consistent guidance.
   
   
2. Use personalized, actionable communication
   Whether through text messages, chatbots, or in-person outreach, the most effective efforts tailor messages to a student’s intended college, deadlines, and next steps. Clear, personalized guidance with direct links to action is more likely to prompt follow-through than general reminders.

Infrastructure

1. Equip staff with data access 
   Programs are more effective when they have access to key student data. Access to real-time college application and financial aid information allows for timely interventions.
   
   
2. Train and support staff
   Summer melt programs are more effective when they provide training and supervision for staff. Well-trained, supported mentors can address both logistical and emotional needs of students.
   
   
3. Combine digital tools with human connection
   Technology can help scale outreach but cannot fully replace person-to-person support. Effective models pair low-cost digital nudges with one-on-one advising or individualized follow-up to address complex questions and keep students moving forward.

Recognizing the importance of continuous support

While there are many programs offered to high school students or to college students, too often programs fail to provide continuous support through the summer transition, at a time when students often need the most support and counseling.

About EdResearch for Action

EdResearch for Action–a joint initiative of Results for America and the Annenberg Institute at Brown University–brings together education leaders, policymakers, and researchers to partner on effective, evidence-based strategies for improving schools.

EdResearch for Action briefs summarize the evidence base on key topics and provide K-12 education decision-makers and advocates with practical, operational guidance for using that evidence to achieve positive outcomes for students.

Read More:

• Undergrad Enrollment Ticks Up 2.4% in Fall 2025
• How States Are (and Aren’t) Sharing Postsecondary Outcomes Data with K-12: A Snapshot from the Field
• Six Findings on Americans' Views of Higher Education

Reading time: Two minutes

College enrollment for 18-year-olds increased 3.2% year-over-year in the fall 2025. This encouraging result comes on the heels of a strong Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) completion effort from the class of 2025, which saw FAFSAs increase nearly 18% through the end of June.

More broadly, undergraduate enrollment ticked up 2.4% in the fall 2025 semester, according to recently-released research from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (NSCRC). Gains were led by particularly strong increases in community college (+4%) and undergraduate certificate (+6.6%) enrollment, although these are not disaggregated by age group.

The findings are based on about 8.5 million student records representing approximately about 49% of postsecondary institutions nationwide through September 25.

Four-year institutions had relatively more modest enrollment gains, with publics (+1.9%) outpacing private nonprofits (+0.9%).

The smaller four-year gains are what we’ve come to expect in these reports. Since fall 2023, undergraduate enrollment has grown by about 5.7%, and over that time community colleges’ enrollment has grown 9.6%.

Beyond institutional sector, the NSCRC also reports on enrollment changes by institutional admission selectivity and locale and by students’ enrollment intensity, race/ethnicity, and neighborhood income, and field of study.

Two things are notable among these student-level disaggregates.

First, enrollment increased the most year-over-year for students under age 24 who were in the bottom two income quintiles, which is an encouraging sign for college access advocates.

Second, enrollment for white students decreased 3.7% while enrollment for “missing/unknown” race/ethnicity students grew by 20.9%. Black and Latino/a students saw enrollment grow by 3.1% and 3.5%, respectively. Because of a growing trend where institutions are reporting “missing/unknown” for student race/ethnicity, it’s probably prudent not to put too much stock in these enrollment figures at present. We can’t get a good read on whether these are real declines in white student enrollment or an increase in non-reporting; similarly, these gains for Black and Hispanic students, for example, might be an undercount because we have no sense how many students from these groups are declining to report their race/ethnicity.

The NSCRC also reports state-level estimates of enrollment changes for fall 2024, 2025, and since fall 2023.

This is the “preliminary” report from the NSCRC; they’ll have full results around January, so check back then. Keep in mind, the NSCRC has a suite of other reports examining postsecondary outcomes like transfer, persistence and retention, completion, and more.

All of these findings point to continued strong demand for education after high school. This is the third consecutive fall with enrollment growth nationally. National College Attainment Network (NCAN) members around the country are helping to drive this momentum forward! NCAN will continue to report on key findings that members can add to the evidence base around their work.

Read More:

• How States Are (and Aren’t) Sharing Postsecondary Outcomes Data with K-12: A Snapshot from the Field
• Six Findings on Americans' Views of Higher Education
• Building Better Outcomes with Postsecondary Data: A New Playbook for Districts

Reading time: Seven minutes

As the National College Attainment Network (NCAN) continues our work to support better data sharing across the education ecosystem, we’re closely tracking how states leverage their contracts with the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) to provide postsecondary outcomes data to K-12 local education agencies (LEAs).

The short answer: most states have a state-level NSC contract, and more than half make that data available to districts and schools (and the public), but far fewer than half are proactively provisioning postsecondary outcomes data directly to the districts and schools who can incorporate it into the advising students receive about education after high school.

NCAN has long believed:

1. The postsecondary outcomes data from the NSC is an invaluable resource for the field that more practitioners should use to advise students.
2. This data isn’t as widely accessible or used as we would like it to be, in part because the analytical capacity of local education agencies varies widely.
3. Many state education agencies contract with the NSC to obtain the outcomes data for all recent graduates within the state.
4. State agencies, through statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS) and other capacities, can achieve analytics economies of scale. Once analyzed, the data can be sent to districts and schools and inform postsecondary advising practices.

Why This Matters

It’s hard to improve what you don’t measure. Measuring students’ postsecondary success doesn’t start when they cross the high school graduation stage, far from it. To create better outcomes, districts need to know:

• Are our graduates enrolling in college?
• Where are our graduates enrolling in college?
• Are they staying enrolled?
• Are they completing a credential?
• And, critically, how do these outcomes vary across student groups?

These questions are critical to ask for past and present classes, but they also impact future high school classes.

For K-12 districts to build effective college and career readiness programming, they need to know how their graduates fare after high school. Postsecondary outcomes data, especially when shared regularly and at the school or district level, helps practitioners understand whether their efforts are leading to enrollment, persistence, and completion in higher education. It also helps identify equity gaps and target resources more strategically.

That’s where the NSC comes in. They track postsecondary enrollment, persistence, and completion for more than 97% of students nationally, across both public and private institutions and across state lines. (Many statewide longitudinal data systems [SLDS] collect data from in-state public institutions, but getting data on private and out-of-state institutions is trickier.) Despite the comprehensive nature of the NSC’s data, too many districts lack meaningful, actionable access to them.

Districts and high schools can obtain postsecondary outcomes via NSC's StudentTracker for High Schools. But not enough are equipped to clean, process, analyze, and apply those data to practice. The diagram below visualizes these different steps districts and schools have to take.

According to recent data from the RAND Corporation’s American School Leader Panel (ASLP), nearly 40% of school leaders report not having access to postsecondary enrollment data in an electronic management system, and nearly 30% reported they did not intend to use postsecondary enrollment data in the current school year.

This is why state-level contracts matter: They offer economies of scale and the potential for equitable, proactive data sharing.

Where States Stand: Contract Status at a Glance

When NCAN launched “Leveraging Change in College and Career Readiness: A Landscape of State-Level Policies and Practices,” we included whether and how states were sharing postsecondary outcomes data from their state-level NSC contracts with local districts and schools.

In February 2025, NCAN hosted a convening on postsecondary data sharing, and we heard firsthand how critical this information is for helping districts understand the long-term outcomes of their students and how much variation exists in access and use. We also learned how state-level agencies and organizations are facilitating that access and use.

To support that conversation, NCAN collected data on the status of NSC contracts across the United States and their current efforts to make postsecondary outcomes data available to K-12 practitioners. The results are a mixed bag that reveals important patterns and promising movement.

In the map above, states are categorized into one of six statuses when it comes to the state-level NSC contract and data sharing activities. You can roll over a state on the map to find out more about how and whether it is sharing its postsecondary outcomes data from NSC with districts and schools.

It’s important to note that the map above, and the counts below, reflect our understanding as of about June 1, 2025. Consider this a snapshot in time, not a status set in stone. We also know that many states also share data through channels like their statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS). Have updates to make to a state’s status? I’d love to chat at debaunb@ncan.org.

• Established (16 states): The state proactively provisions data obtained from the statewide NSC contract to districts and schools. This data may be sent to LEAs or appear in a data portal with appropriate FERPA protections. LEAs do not need to make a request for these data, the state will provision it in some form, either in the aggregate (district or high school level) or at the student level, as part of an established process. States usually provide periodic TA/PD opportunities to LEAs for using data.
  


• Progressing (22 states): The state has least one statewide NSC contract, which mainly populates state report cards, a state postsecondary outcomes dashboard, or another public-facing resource. LEAs may be able to obtain postsecondary outcomes data but might have to make a request to do so or might only be able to receive school-level data.


• Planning (five states): The state has at least one statewide NSC contract, but the data largely are for federal reporting accountability or populating an SLDS. There’s no clear mechanism for an LEA to obtain postsecondary outcomes data, either in the aggregate or at the student level.


• Insufficient Information (five states): We’ve been unable to collect enough information to understand if/how a state is using a statewide NSC contract.


• No Contract (three states): Our current understanding is that a state-level NSC contract is not held by a state-level department or agency.

What’s Working in States?

The landscape analysis broadly categorizes states by how they’re sharing their very valuable NSC data, but the specifics, predictably, vary from state to state. Last year, NCAN shared a brief from Quality Information Partners (QIP) and three case studies of state exemplars:

• Michigan's MI School Data Portal: Michigan’s MI School Data portal provide postsecondary outcomes data visualizations and reports at the district, school, or college levels. The portal highlights the importance of stakeholder collaboration and specific uses of postsecondary outcomes data for decision-making, enhancing programs, empowering educators, and driving statewide education goals.
• Minnesota's Regional Coaching Network: Minnesota’s Regional Coaching Network helps educators access, interpret, and use data to improve postsecondary and workforce outcomes for their students.
• North Carolina's Targeted Support for Districts: This case study highlights the training and technical assistance provided to district and school staff and examples of how school counselors use data to map student pathways and trajectories to identify trends, patterns, and potential areas for improvement in career and college readiness and postsecondary outcomes.

QIP has a community of practice around postsecondary outcomes data sharing to talk about strategies like these. Interested individuals and organizations should sign up for the forum to learn alongside their peers.

The Case for Proactive State Leadership

States that provision data, invest in professional development that focuses on using data to inform high-quality postsecondary advising, and streamline practitioners access are laying the groundwork for helping students find their next, best step after high school. States can reduce burdens on districts and ensure more equitable access to insights that can shape programming. With student-level NSC data, districts can disaggregate by race, gender, income, GPA, program participation and more. This helps to identify and close gaps in postsecondary access and success.

NCAN isn’t done talking about how states can lead in this area. Not by a long shot. In a future post, we’ll focus on the conditions and processes by which states already do this data sharing and suggest how more states can do the same. We’ll also look at how states with multiple contracts can better coordinate across governmental agencies, potentially avoiding duplication, streamlining data sharing, and making timely data available to more stakeholders.

In the meantime, have questions about state-level data sharing, NSC contracts, or ways to help practitioners make better use of this data for advising? I’d love to hear from you at debaunb@ncan.org.

The author is grateful to Alessandra Cipriani-Detres, Senior Associate, Strategic Initiatives at NCAN; Dr. Kate Akers, Vice President, Policy Implementation and Best Practices at the Data Quality Campaign; and Kimberly Hanauer, Founder and CEO at Unlock Education, for their assistance with this landscape analysis and work in this area.

Read More:

• Six Findings on Americans' Views of Higher Education
• Building Better Outcomes with Postsecondary Data: A New Playbook for Districts
• Taking Student Survey Data Seriously: Insights From 15,000 High Schoolers

In July, New America released its 9th annual Varying Degrees survey on higher education. The survey collected data from 1,600 adults with Democratic and Republican viewpoints to identify similarities and differences between the two groups across six key themes.

1. Americans broadly agree on the core roles of colleges and universities. “Nine in 10 Americans think that it’s important for colleges to equip students with the skills and knowledge to succeed in their chosen fields (97% of Democrats and 98% of Republicans). Americans also believe colleges should help students become informed citizens (93%) and critical thinkers (91%). Supporting students is not the only purpose of colleges and universities: Americans believe that institutions of higher education should also provide a skilled and educated workforce for the economy (95%), conduct research to advance knowledge (92%, and engage with and contribute to the community they are located in (88%)” (Nguyen et al. 6, 12).
   
   
2. Americans agree that job training should not be the only outcome of a college education. “They believe other areas, such as writing and communication (97% of Democrats and 92% of Republicans) and thinking and reasoning (97% and 92%, respectively) are also important indicators of quality. When it comes to the quality of higher education, nearly all Americans believe skills training is an important indicator of quality (96%), but it’s not the only one. 94% believe that the development of competencies such as writing, reasoning, and communication is important. Access to research and internship opportunities, as well as robust student support services, contribute significantly to the perception of institutional quality” (Nguyen et al. 6, 14).
   
   
3. Americans continue to show frustration with the current state of higher education. “Only 40% agree that higher education is fine how it is (42% for both parties). and like last year, slightly more than half of Americans (54%) think colleges and universities are having a positive effect on the way things are in the country. There is a vast partisan divide on this question: 74% of Democrats said they see positive effects of higher education, compared to only 39% of Republicans. The partisan split on higher education impact is notable and surprising, considering Democrats and Republicans align on their confidence in what higher education can do, both for individuals and society. Eight in ten Americans, including large shares of both Democrats and Republicans, believe that colleges and universities help students succeed and get ahead in life. Nearly eight in 10 Americans think colleges and universities prepare students with relevant knowledge and skills required by employers, and 82% believe college graduates can find jobs in their field of training” (Nguyen et al. 6, 18).
   
   
4. A large share of Americans still believe that higher education is worth the investment and is needed if one wants to get ahead in life. 73% of Americans agree that education beyond high school offers good return on investment for the student (81% of Democrats and 74% of Republicans). Only 54% of Americans believe colleges and universities have a positive effect on the country, dropping from 69% in 2019. During this six-year period, the partisan gap has widened on this question. In 2025, 74% of Democrats and 39% of Republicans believe that higher education plays a positive role in the United States, a 35-percentage point difference, compared to the 20-percentage point gap in 2020. Only 40% of Americans think higher education is fine as it is, an increase from 33% in 2019. While on the upward trend, the share of people who agreed with this statement has never gone above 41%, which shows that a majority of Americans are still not happy with how higher education is. Both Democrats and Republicans are aligned on this question in recent years, despite a significant gap during 2019 and 2021 (Nguyen et al. 7, 30).
   
   
5. The cost of college remains a major concern. Only half of survey respondents think that Americans can get a high-quality education after high school that is also affordable. Democrats and Republicans agree that affordability is a significant barrier to college access: When asked to pick one among the top reasons that stop students from enrolling or completing their programs, 66% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans choose the cost of attending as the main reason. Only about half of Americans think they can get an affordable high-quality college education, and there is bipartisan alignment on this issue: 49% of Democrats and 53% of Republicans agree. Three in four Americans believe the federal government should increase funding to make higher education more affordable, including 91% of Democrats and 58% of Republicans. Eight in 10 Americans agree that the government should increase the maximum amount of the Pell Grant, the largest federal aid program for low-income students. Increasing the Pell Grant receives bipartisan support, with 94% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans in favor of the idea (Nguyen et al. 7, 22, 26).
   
   
6. Americans may not agree on who should pay for college, but a majority believe more federal and state investment is needed. While only 54% of Americans think the government should be more responsible for funding higher education because it’s good for society, 74% of Americans think that the federal government should spend more tax dollars on education opportunities after high school to make them more affordable. Despite a sizable gap on this question: a majority of Democrats (91%) and Republicans (58%) agree. The argument for more government funding for higher education is perhaps rooted in the idea that higher education is a public good and that society benefits from having an educated citizenry and a skilled workforce. On the other hand, those who argue students should bear the cost often frame college as a personal choice, since it is students who mainly accrue the benefits of more education, such as higher earnings and career advancement. Therefore, the argument goes, students should foot the bill (Nguyen et al. 8, 24).

Across party lines, there is a strong agreement that colleges and universities should prepare students for successful careers, encourage critical thinking, and serve the broader community. However, rising concerns about cost, accessibility, and the overall quality of colleges and universities highlight the challenges facing the higher education system today. Although most Americans believe college is worth the investment and essential to success and stability, fewer view higher education as a positive effort in society compared to previous years. The survey highlights a shared belief in the importance of government efforts to improve affordability, an aspect where bipartisan consensus remains strong. Ultimately, Americans visualize a higher education system that maintains quality and opportunity for all, but they acknowledge that meaningful reform is essential to re-establish public trust and guarantee its long-term value.

Source: Nguyen, Sophie, et al. “Varying Degrees 2025: Americans Find Common Ground in Higher Education.” New America, July 2025, www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/varying-degrees-2025-americans-find-common-ground-in-higher-education/executive-summary.

Read More:

• Building Better Outcomes with Postsecondary Data: A New Playbook for Districts
• Taking Student Survey Data Seriously: Insights From 15,000 High Schoolers
• NSCRC: HS Class of 2024’s Enrollment Remained Stable, Stubborn Gaps Remain

Reading time: Four minutes

Good intentions are necessary but not sufficient for moving the needle on postsecondary readiness and success in K-12 districts and schools. There are many conditions that should be present in a system to effectively deliver advising and help every student find their next, best step after high school graduation. Data, when it’s used well, is one of the most powerful levers for getting there for a school district.

Education Strategy Group’s (ESG) new Building Better Outcomes: A District Playbook for Effective Postsecondary Data Practice offers a practical, district-centered guide to building a coherent, student-focused data ecosystem. This playbook sits squarely alongside both the recently-released definition of high-quality advising and the District Enabling Conditions Framework: leadership commitment, aligned infrastructure, and data-driven practice are all enabling conditions that allow students to receive advising that is personalized, equitable, and connected to real outcomes.

Explore the Playbook

The playbook is tactical and practical, offering open-source tools for districts (and other organizations) to make use of, with clear instructions for facilitation. Examples of the tools included herein include:

• Self-Assessment now to determine strengths and areas for improvement in data leadership, infrastructure, and use.
• Priority Metrics with which to align strategic plans and “create a shared vision for student success that is measurable and actionable.”
• Sample Mission & Vision Statements and Strategic Priorities
• District Data Collection Template
• Goal Setting Calculator

Three Core Building Blocks

The playbook organizes effective postsecondary data practice into three mutually reinforcing components:

• Data Leadership: Postsecondary outcomes become a district priority when leaders put them at the center of strategy, resource allocation, and accountability. Without visible leadership, even the strongest infrastructure or data tools are unlikely to take root. (Examples from the Playbook include: Los Angeles USD, Jackson Public Schools, YouthForce NOLA)
• Data Infrastructure: Clean, connected, and consistently defined data makes it possible to turn vision into action. Infrastructure that integrates sources, ensures accuracy, and delivers the right information to the right users lays the groundwork for continuous improvement. (Examples: Metro Nashville Public Schools, Knox County Schools, Desert Sands USD)
• Data Use: Ultimately, data is most impactful when it informs practice and spurs change. Embedding postsecondary metrics into professional development, continuous improvement routines, and core advising programs ensures that the information shapes day-to-day decisions and student supports. (Examples: Hamilton County Schools, Beaufort County Schools, Chicago Public Schools)

Okay, So How Do I Actually Use This Thing?

ESG proposes four steps for districts wanting to turn the playbook into action:

• Step One: Assemble a Team: The district should form a task force to elevate postsecondary and workforce success as a strategic priority. This task force will pull and analyze data on historical performance, set the district's postsecondary and workforce strategy, organize workgroups to execute priorities, take charge of ongoing implementation, and convene external partners and stakeholders.
• Step Two: Take the Self-Assessment: Once the team is assembled, assess the district's current postsecondary data practice via the self-assessment. Identify up to 10 team members to complete the self-assessment.
• Step Three: Review Your Results & Prioritize Next Steps: After the self-assessment, meet to discuss the results and align on priorities. You want to build your way up per the handy house infographic (i.e., start by improving Data Leadership, then Data Infrastructure, and then Data Use).
• Step Four: Discover Resources to Support Your Postsecondary Data Practice: Once your team has determined your district's priorities, navigate to the corresponding section of the Playbook to see exemplar practices from other districts, step-by-step instructions for how to improve practice, and tools and resources to help you along the way.

Connecting to High-Quality Advising and Enabling Conditions

At the National College Attainment Network (NCAN), we subscribe to the vision of high-quality postsecondary advising as guidance that is student-centered, data-informed, and driven by promoting success for all students. The Building Better Outcomes playbook offers districts a roadmap to put those principles into action. Strong data leadership creates the conditions for advising to be prioritized. Robust infrastructure ensures that advisers, counselors, and school leaders have relevant, reliable, and recent information at their fingertips. Embedding data into everyday use means that practitioners can monitor progress, identify gaps, and adjust interventions in real time.

The playbook isn’t just about numbers, and it isn’t about just a few people using data here and there. It’s about creating the enabling conditions that make it possible for districts to deliver on the promise of high-quality postsecondary advising for every student.

A Call to Action for Districts (and Anyone Else Who Can Stand to Be a Bit More Data-Driven)

ESG developed Building Better Outcomes in consultation with districts nationwide, ensuring that the guidance is both practical and rooted in lived experience.

District leaders and practitioners who are serious about improving postsecondary outcomes should take a close look at the playbook and then, rather than just bookmarking it, forward it along to colleagues and set a time to take the self-assessment and advance the conversation about what’s working in terms of district-level data access and use and what needs a jumpstart. Building a culture of postsecondary data use is not easy work, but it is foundational to driving the advising that helps students succeed in college, career, and life.

Download the playbook and take the self-assessment here!

Read More:

• New Research on College Savings Accounts Highlights Gaps, Financial Literacy
• Research Roundup: Transfer Outcomes, College Undersupply, Education & Earnings, & More
• Survey Data Considers Why Students Don’t Complete FAFSA

Reading time: Five minutes

What was a good day in high school? 

Did you look forward to it? 

Did you feel supported by multiple adults? How did your school prepare you for the next stage of your life? 

Student perceptions and experiences inform a high school’s culture and climate and have a lasting impact on students’ ability to be successful after graduating. As more and more high schools seek to blur the lines between high school, postsecondary, and workforce, educators, administrators, and superintendents need information that captures how high schoolers feel and experience this transition and the support they receive. Because it can be predictive of longer-term outcomes, this data should sit alongside other leading indicators of college and career readiness and help leaders inform their priorities and decision-making.

In 2023, OneGoal piloted its Student Postsecondary Culture Survey (SPCS), within the OneGoal Leadership Network as a tool designed to elevate student voice and provide practitioners with robust data about how high school students experience their post-graduation transition. The survey organizes data across four topics centered on a set of key questions:

• Advising and Relationships: To what extent do students have access to the advising they need to reach their highest postsecondary aspirations?
• Equitable Course Access: To what extent are students advised, encouraged, and supported in enrolling in advanced coursework (CTE, Dual Enrollment, AP/IB)?
• Plans, Preparedness, and Expectations: To what extent are students prepared with the information and resources they need to reach their highest postsecondary aspirations?
• Outside Support: To what extent do students have access to support outside of school to reach their highest postsecondary aspirations?

Over the last three years, OneGoal has collected nearly 15,000 survey responses from high school students across seven states, including 9,000 responses during the 2024-25 school year. This dataset includes responses from students in a public charter school in Milwaukee, students from the Boston area, students from rural communities in Texas and Kentucky, and students from exurban and suburban communities that sit adjacent to metropolitan areas. As with any school improvement data, the trends are complicated, nuanced, and multi-faceted:

• The overwhelming majority of students feel comfortable talking to adults in their school about what they need to do to be successful after high school, and students report receiving information about the process to enroll in multiple post-graduation pathways.
• Nearly a third (27%) of students do not feel encouraged by counselors to enroll in an advanced course. 
• Nearly nine out of 10 students feel supported by adults outside of their high schools. 
• Students are worried about financing their post-graduation pathways. 

The SPSC is an anonymous survey, but it leverages optional demographic questions to help educators understand the experiences of students across subgroups. Our data from this year revealed positive increases in student responses as students progressed grade levels. For example, only 68% of 9th graders reported receiving information about application and enrollment processes for trade school or certification programs. However, that percentage rose to 84% for 12th graders. The largest gap across questions was not across gender, racial groups, or even based on first-generation college student status. Instead, the largest gap was across students that self-identify as already enrolled in an advanced course versus those that identify not currently enrolled in an advanced course. Only 68% of students not currently enrolled in an advanced course report that adults advise them to take advanced courses (compared to 92% of students already currently enrolled). And, only 66% of students not currently enrolled in an advanced course feel confident that they can be successful (compared to 90% of students already enrolled). Unsurprisingly, suggesting and advising advanced coursework to students can spur student behavior to enroll.

Too often, educational leaders over-rely on a small number of student-level metrics to make school improvement decisions related to college and career readiness. As Elaine Allensworth, Lewis-Sebring Executive Director of the UChicago Consortium, observed in a recent webinar on how to measure school performance, ”Too much focus on any one metric you're going to miss a lot. And you're going to encourage practices that ultimately may not be the best for fully developing students giving them all the opportunities that they really want.” 

Practitioners can benefit from using a more nuanced approach that triangulates student-level metrics with survey data that increases their understanding of whether and how adult practices and the student experience is also changing. This includes examining data from the SPSC, side by side with data on leading indicators for college and career readiness, as well as data on system-level changes.

Although there are reservations about using student survey data to evaluate school performance, more and more states have included student surveys as a part of their accountability framework. Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, and New Mexico all leverage surveys as a part of their School Quality and Student Success federal accountability indicator. In the same webinar mentioned above, Allensworth further detailed the promise of and research behind survey usage: “People will say survey data is subjective… survey data… can be collected in ways that are highly reliable and highly predictive and give really good information about how students are experiencing a classroom.”

Research continues to emerge that establishes the link between improvements on these types of surveys and improvements on student outcomes. However, for this trend to continue, and for educators to embrace their use and reliability, survey tools require alignment with emerging national efforts to redesign and reorganize high schools. There is consensus across policymakers and practitioners for these types of transformational changes to high school. Now is the time to invest in tools and data that equip educators to lead these changes.

Andrew Schmitz is the Senior Managing Director of system impact at OneGoal. He launched and leads the OneGoal Leadership Network, which partners with more than 60 districts in seven states.

Dr. Rachel Martin is the Senior Director of Program Learning at OneGoal and leads OneGoal’s work on system impact measurement.

Read More:

• Building Better Outcomes with Postsecondary Data: A New Playbook for Districts
• NSCRC: HS Class of 2024’s Enrollment Remained Stable, Stubborn Gaps Remain
• New Research on College Savings Accounts Highlights Gaps, Financial Literacy

Reading time: Three minutes

The high school class of 2024’s immediate college enrollment rate changed very little from the class of 2023’s, and enrollment, persistence, and completion gaps based on income levels and demographics remain unfortunately stubborn. These are the big takeaways from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center’s (NSCRC) recently released High School Benchmarks report. An interactive dashboard displays the data and allows for exploration of the three key postsecondary outcomes.

This is the 13^th iteration of the High School Benchmarks report, which is particularly valuable because sources on the postsecondary outcomes of high school graduates are particularly (and surprisingly) difficult to find in the United States. National College Attainment Network (NCAN) members can use this data for benchmarking their own outcomes and better understanding the national postsecondary outcomes landscape. Other practitioners and policymakers would also do well to bookmark this report.

This year’s report considers first-fall (immediate) college enrollment for the high school graduating class of 2024, persistence for the class of 2022, and completion for the class of 2018. The NSCRC disaggregates these outcomes across high school income, minority, and locale-centric characterizations.

The report notes “differences in immediate fall enrollment remained stable across nearly all high school characteristics for the high school graduating classes of 2023 and 2024.”

Good news from this year’s report is that the class of 2024’s postsecondary enrollment didn’t decline given the well-documented difficulties with the 2024-25 award year Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which saw high school seniors’ FAFSA completions decline 11.6% by June 30, 2024. Movement in FAFSA completion and college enrollment have been closely associated historically, but at least for the class of 2024 the association seems not to have held given the increase in 18-year-old freshman enrollment in the fall 2024 semester and the stable findings in the High School Benchmarks report.

Despite this, the report shows the same stubborn gaps that have long plagued the transition from high school to college. Graduates from higher-income high schools continued to enroll at much higher rates than their peers from low-income high schools. The pattern is even starker when comparing high- and low-poverty schools: just one-quarter of graduates from high-poverty high schools completed a postsecondary credential within six years, compared to more than half of graduates from low-poverty schools.

Ultimately, if just 60% of students are immediately enrolling in college following high school graduation and just 60% of those students are completing within six years, the United States has a lot of work to do to produce students with the education and training credentials the United States needs.

For those who like to dig deeper into the data, a detailed appendix allows for the consideration of high schools’ sectors and categories.

The High School Benchmarks series provides practitioners with the best nationally representative yardstick for immediate enrollment, persistence, and completion, disaggregated by high school income, poverty, minority enrollment, and locale. For NCAN members, the findings reinforce both the stubborn inequities in our systems and the urgency of interventions (e.g., expanding FAFSA completion support, building advising capacity, or strengthening persistence strategies) that can make a difference for students navigating their postsecondary paths.

Read More:

• Building Better Outcomes with Postsecondary Data: A New Playbook for Districts
• New Research on College Savings Accounts Highlights Gaps, Financial Literacy
• Research Roundup: Transfer Outcomes, College Undersupply, Education & Earnings, & More

Reading time: Three minutes

College savings accounts (CSAs) have the potential to help students and families save money that could pay for education or training after high school. Despite their promise, increasing the take-up of CSAs may require additional investments and interventions in raising financial literacy rates.

These are some of the findings of a new National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, "Navigating the College Affordability Crisis: Insights from College Savings Accounts" (Briscese, List, & Liu, 2025).

The study uses “comprehensive administrative data from over 900,000 Illinois 529 accounts (2000-2023) linked to educational outcomes, plus complementary surveys of account owners and parents.”

CSAs, also sometimes known as 529 plans, provide a tax-advantaged vehicle for families to save for college, which is important because “tuition costs have increased 1,200% since 1980, pricing out the very families who would benefit most from higher education’s mobility-enhancing effects,” according to the study’s authors.

Notably, the study links higher savings to improved educational outcomes. Students with larger CSA balances were more likely to attend four-year and selective institutions, more likely to transfer from community colleges to universities, and more likely to pursue graduate degrees.

The authors find that although nearly every ZIP code in Illinois now has an open CSA account, ownership is heavily concentrated among higher-income, more-educated households.

The research highlights that barriers are not only financial but also behavioral. Among Illinois parents surveyed, 61% of those who could save enough to cover half of their child’s future costs believed those savings would be “meaningless.” Parents frequently underestimate the impact of modest, consistent contributions (e.g., monthly $100 contributions over 10-15 years). Additionally, administrative friction like paperwork and misperceptions about financial aid contribute families not participating.

Financial literacy appears to play a powerful role in the differential take-up of CSAs. Of CSA owners, 79% scored highly on financial literacy measures in the study, compared to only 32% of non-owners. This knowledge gap might help explain why even families with disposable income often fail to save effectively.

Unfortunately, significant disparities appear in savings levels within the pool of account holders. In 2023, the top 5% of owners held nearly 30% of all deposits, while half of account holders collectively owned just 8%. In a statistic that reflects the inequality of the United States overall, the authors note, “The average balance for the top 1% of account owners was $531,000, compared to an average of $9,000 for the bottom 50%.”

The authors suggest that federal and state policy, in addition to dispelling financial myths and increasing financial literacy, could be helpful for expanding the take-up of and effective savings levels in CSAs. The authors suggest that tools like calculators that show the growth of consistent monthly contributions could help parents visualize the impact of saving. Additionally, targeted financial literacy interventions delivered through schools, employers, or trusted community partners may also broaden participation. The National College Attainment Network (NCAN) has written recently about how financial literacy curricula could spur Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) completion, maybe they have a use case here, too.

The research also proposes options for Congress to get involved like expanding contribution limits, offering income-based matching incentives, or “opt-out” enrollment that could help ensure that 529 plans serve as tools for narrowing college access and attainment gaps, not just wealth preservation for higher-income families.

Ultimately, this study advances the idea of CSAs as behavioral interventions, not just financial vehicles. For NCAN members, these findings reinforce a familiar theme: affordability is not just about costs; it is also about perceptions, knowledge, and support. Advisors and practitioners can play an important role in connecting families to savings opportunities and helping them see the value of even modest contributions.

Read More:

• Survey Data Considers Why Students Don’t Complete FAFSA
• New Study Finds Positive Impacts of High School CCR Curricula
• Eight Interesting Things I Learned About NSC’s StudentTracker 3.0

Reading time: Three minutes

It can be hard to keep up with all the latest reports in education related to college access and attainment. Acknowledging that, here are summaries of four recent interesting pieces of research. Are you a National College Attainment Network (NCAN) member who really likes data, evaluation, and research? Email me at  debaunb@ncan.org to get involved in our data, evaluation, and research channel on the NCAN Online Practitioner Community!

New data on transfer outcomes

“Tracking Transfer” is one of the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center’s (NSCRC) regular reports, and the latest edition “examines students entering community college in the fall 2017 term and their transfer-out and bachelor’s completion rates within six years.” This version also includes “students who enter a four-year institution in the 2017-18 academic year after transferring from a community college.” Some of the top highlights include:

• Just 32% of students who started at a community college in fall 2017 transferred to a four-year institution within six years. Among transfers, about 50% completed a bachelor’s degree within six years.
• “Students who entered community college in fall 2017 with prior dual enrollment had higher transfer-out (46.9%) and bachelor’s completion rates (60.1%) than first-time-ever-in-college students.”
• In what feels like a blow to the idea of “2+2” transfer pathways, just 22.4% of community college students who transferred to a four-year institution earned a bachelor’s degree within two years of transferring. Expanding the post-transfer window has a big impact though; 67% of those who transferred with an award earned a bachelor’s within four years.
• Persistence was high for transfers. After transferring, 82% of community college students re-enrolled at their four-year transfer institution in the following academic year.

The NSCRC has an interactive dashboard for both the entering community college and entering four-year college (after transfer) cohorts.

“Income Gap Between Householders With College Degrees and Those With High School Degrees but No College Widened Over Last Two Decades.”

The headline from the US Census Bureau really says it all. Data from the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASES) shows that between 2004 and 2024 “The median household income of those with at least a bachelor’s degree rose by about $15,000 or 13.1%, while the median household income of those with less than a high school diploma (the smallest educational attainment group) climbed by about $3,500 or 10.4% (percent increases for the two groups did not significantly differ from each other).”

You’re all going to want to flag this one for your case-making, I suspect.

We need more college graduates. Like, a lot more.

Where enrollment fell since 2010, maybe that was okay?

Preston Cooper at the American Enterprise Institute is out with new data showing that “undergraduate college enrollment fell nearly 20% between 2010 and 2023…The worst fifth of colleges as measured by student outcomes lost nearly half their undergraduate enrollment between 2010 and 2023. The best fifth increased enrollment by 8%.” Cooper identifies two big implications:

“First, the decline in college enrollment may not be the crisis some believe, as the drop is occurring mostly at low-quality institutions, which students may not be better off for having attended. Second, student choice is a more powerful driver of trends in higher education than observers often appreciate; students seem to have some sense of variation in college quality and make their enrollment decisions accordingly.”

Cooper’s measurement of student outcomes and which institutions count as “the worst” comes from an index constructed from student loan repayment rates, student loan non-default rate, completion rate, and earnings after enrollment.

That’s it for now – have research you’d like to elevate to the rest of the NCAN membership? Let me know at debaunb@ncan.org, and it might appear in a future edition of this series.

Read More:

• Survey Data Considers Why Students Don’t Complete FAFSA
• New Study Finds Positive Impacts of High School CCR Curricula
• Eight Interesting Things I Learned About NSC’s StudentTracker 3.0

Reading time: Four minutes

“Why don’t more students complete the FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid)?” It’s a perennial question for policymakers, advocates, and practitioners in college access. Survey data from Trellis Strategies helps to shine an updated light on the answers to that question.

Earlier this year, the National College Attainment Network (NCAN) shared data from Trellis’ Student Financial Wellness Survey (SFWS). These findings on how students’ financial realities and frailties impact their postsecondary success are extremely valuable. One item in the Student Financial Wellness Survey attracted my attention: “Did any of the following contribute to your decision to not complete the FAFSA? Please check all that apply.”

The overall results for that item are below, listed in reverse order of the percentage of undergrads reporting it as a factor:

About half of respondents who said they did not complete the FAFSA did so because they thought they wouldn’t be eligible for aid (the quarter of students who cited “other reasons” also bear some digging into, but set that aside for a moment). There are at least three interesting factors at play here:

• On the one hand, we could have students from low-income backgrounds who are unaware of need-based financial aid, federal or otherwise, unlocked by FAFSA completion.
• On the other hand, we could have higher-income students who select this response because they surmise (maybe rightly) that their income would preclude them from need-based aid.

Untangling these two factors is important because if we have students from low-income backgrounds who are misinformed about their eligibility for need-based aid unlocked by the FAFSA, that represents a continued field-wide awareness problem that all stakeholders need to continue to correct.

Carla Fletcher, a research consultant at Trellis Strategies, helped to do that untangling. She produced the response data for question 32 for two categories of respondent:

• Those who responded “Yes” or “No” to the question, “Would you have trouble getting $500 in cash or credit in order to meet an unexpected need within the next month?” and
• Those who responded “Yes” or “No” to using or receiving public assistance since January 1, 2024 in the form of any of these programs: Food assistance (e.g., SNAP, WIC, TANF, etc.); Unemployment assistance (e.g., unemployment insurance, etc.); Housing assistance (e.g., eviction moratorium, housing choice vouchers/Section 8, etc.); Utility assistance (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, local utility assistance programs, etc.); Medical assistance (Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP, etc.); Childcare assistance (Childcare subsidies, vouchers, fee assistance, etc.)

The responses based on these categorizations appears below. These data are for all undergraduate respondents, and reasons have been listed in approximate reverse order of prevalence.

There’s perhaps a surprising amount of parity between the “Yes” and “No” respondents within these two categories across reasons for not completing the FAFSA. The responses also lend credence to my hypothesis that too many students from low-income backgrounds are unaware of their need-based aid eligibility.

Just 11% of students who said they would have trouble getting access to $500 cited “I could afford to go to school without financial aid” as a reason for not completing the FAFSA, and 13% of students who received or used some form of public assistance cited that as a FAFSA non-completion reason. Students who said they wouldn’t have trouble getting $500 or hadn’t received public assistance said they could afford to go to school without financial aid 34% and 24% of the time, respectively. This suggests these breakouts are good, albeit rough, proxies for income groupings.

But then when we move back up to “I did not think I would be eligible for financial aid,” 48% of “trouble getting $500” respondents cited this as a reason for not completing the FAFSA; 41% of “received public assistance” respondents cited it. This is compared to 50% and 51% of their counterparts in the “higher-income” proxy group.

Somewhere between 40-50% of lower-income respondents who didn’t complete the FAFSA thinking they’d be ineligible for financial aid is a clear sign of being mis- or underinformed about the need-based grant aid unlocked by the federal form. It’s a massive, glaring miscommunication to students and families that our collective policy, programming, and practice can chip away at and correct. The fact that the lower-income respondents were also more likely to report, “I did not have enough information about how to apply for financial aid” pulls in this same direction.

One relevant note to consider: the survey does not capture students’ undocumented status (or their parents’). This is a factor that would impact FAFSA completion and the reasons for FAFSA non-completion. We can’t know from this edition of the SFWS the extent to which undocumented students who didn’t complete the FAFSA rightly identified that they would be ineligible for federal financial aid. Keep that caveat in mind.

The high school class of 2025 bounced back in a big way in terms of FAFSA completion. By about June 30, completions were up 17.5% year-over-year, according to NCAN’s FAFSA Tracker. We still see a 5-6 percentage point gap in FAFSA completion rates nationally between low-income and higher-income public high schools. These gaps are persistent and pernicious, but they aren’t inevitable.

Big thanks to Trellis for the valuable data here, which once again illuminates our understanding of FAFSA non-completion.

Want more resources on FAFSA completion? NCAN has you covered.

Read More: 

• Could Financial Literacy Curricula Promote FAFSA Completion
• Eight Interesting Things I Learned About NSC's StudentTracker 3.0
• FAFSA Completions Bounce Back with Class of 2025, Return to Pre-Pandemic Rates

Reading time: Six minutes

A recent study by Dr. Joshua Hyman that appears in Education Next evaluates the implementation of an 18-week college counseling curriculum and produces findings that should be interesting to state agencies and college access stakeholders everywhere.

Hyman “designed an experiment that compared post-graduation outcomes among students at high schools randomly assigned to teach, or not to teach, an 18-week college-planning curriculum, either as a standalone class or part of a senior-year humanities course.” He notes, “I find a range of benefits, at a cost of about $8 per student.”

The study took place during the 2016-17 academic year and included more than 6,700 Michigan 12th graders across 62 schools. Half of the schools in the treatment group were asked to deliver the curriculum, which was not mandatory for students but in which 63% of eligible students enrolled. The other half of the schools represented a control group but offered the curriculum to students the following academic year.

The curriculum in question was developed by the Michigan College Access Network (MCAN), a longtime National College Attainment Network (NCAN) member and partner. We'll have more information on it in a future post!

To evaluate the curriculum’s impact on students’ postsecondary outcomes, Hyman used data from a variety of sources, including the National Student Clearinghouse. He compared the college enrollment, persistence, and completion outcomes as well as the type of school to which students matriculated and their declared major of students at treatment and control high schools.

Source: Education Next

High-Achieving, Low-Income Students’ Postsecondary Outcomes Rose the Most

• More students in treatment high schools did not enroll in college, and these schools’ college-going rates remained similar.
• However, the course influenced which students went to college. Hyman notes, “high-achieving students, defined as having above-median GPAs and scores on the SAT, are 4% more likely to enroll in either a two- or four-year college, while low-achieving students are 9.5% less likely to enroll.”
• Treatment students had higher rates of postsecondary persistence and were more likely to earn an associate degree within six years of high school graduation.
• Notably, the effects for low-income high achieving students were largest. These students were 6% more likely to enroll in college and 11% more likely to earn a two- or four-year degree.
• Contrast this with the finding that low-income, low-achieving students enrolled 9.5% less after taking the curriculum. Hyman emphasizes that, “There is no decline in the share of those students earning a degree. In other words, offering a college-planning curriculum nudges a greater share of academically prepared students to enroll and succeed in college, while some of the students who would be most likely to drop out opt not to enroll in the first place.”

Increasing Student Mobility from Two- to Four-Year Institutions

As noted, Hyman had access to students’ matriculation destinations and choice of major, and he hypothesizes that these played a role in the treatment group’s increases in college persistence. Hyman notes that, “The college-planning curriculum emphasizes both the opportunity to apply community-college credits toward a bachelor’s degree and the value of an associate degree in the labor force.” Consequently, exposure to the curriculum, increased the percentage of students who enrolled in both two- and four-year institutions following high school graduation by 27%.

Importantly, low-achieving low-income students who received the curriculum were 16% less likely to enroll in only a community college but were 94% more likely to enroll in both a two- and four-year institution.

Undermatch and Enrollment Destinations

“Undermatch” is a phenomenon by which a student enrolls at an institution whose academic admissions criteria are lower than that student’s demonstrated achievement. The curriculum “emphasizes avoiding ‘undermatch’ in school choice, because community colleges and non-selective four-year institutions tend to have fewer resources and lower graduation rates.” Many students exposed to the curriculum apparently were paying attention during this unit; the percentage of students enrolling in a “safety,” “match,” or “reach” school increased 23% for students in the treatment while those enrolling solely in a safety school decreased 6%, although this finding failed statistical significance tests.

Interestingly, low-income, high-achieving students exposed to the curriculum were 12% more likely to enroll in a safety school. Hyman concludes, “It seems [the undermatching messaging] succeeded in preventing low-achieving students who would have enrolled at these types of institutions from doing so, but not in inspiring low-income, high-achieving students to enroll in more competitive schools.”

What Did the Curriculum Cover?

The table below describes the content and cadence of the college planning curriculum developed by MCAN and delivered in this study.

Approaching a college readiness curriculum for students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds requires intentional and targeted support.This MCAN curriculum reflects a broader commitment to ensuring access and opportunity for all students and aligns with ongoing state-level policy and advocacy efforts.

This is not the first time that NCAN has covered college and career readiness curricula. For example, Illinois’ Postsecondary and Career Expectations (PaCE) Framework has been instrumental in guiding the development of individualized learning plans, career-focused instructional pathways, and professional learning opportunities in that state. These efforts also align with the Illinois State Board of Education’s College and Career Readiness Indicator (CCRI), demonstrating a statewide emphasis on comprehensive and coordinated approaches to postsecondary preparation and success.

Additionally, we previously wrote about Tempe Union High School District’s CCR framework.

States, Districts, and Schools Should Take Note

Hyman describes the curriculum intervention as “efficient” because its costs, about $8 per student, are very small even relative to the modest increases in lifetime earnings generated by increasing degree attainment. The conclusion to Hyman’s article is one we’d love to be shared far and wide:

This near-zero financial cost is an important strength of the intervention. Schools serving large numbers of economically disadvantaged students are rarely in the financial position to hire additional counselors or implement a new college-going intervention, even if it is relatively inexpensive on a per-pupil basis. Yet these students are underrepresented on college campuses and arguably most in need of direct support in navigating admissions and enrollment decisions. A college-planning curriculum delivered by classroom teachers represents a promising alternative.

NCAN will keep our eyes out for more evaluations of these kinds of interventions and continue to share them with members and the field. In the meantime, if you’d be interested in implementing such a curriculum in the schools you serve, please reach out to our partners at the Michigan College Access Network.

• Illinois Framework Sets the PaCE for Other States’ CCR Efforts
• Equitable and Road to Hire are Closing the FAFSA Gap
• Tempe CCR Framework, Sequence Offer Models for Other Districts, Schools

Reading time: Seven minutes

Earlier this spring, the National College Attainment Network (NCAN) shared the good and long-awaited news that the rollout of the National Student Clearinghouse’s (NSC) StudentTracker 3.0 platform had begun. NCAN members and other data-focused individuals and programs in the field know that StudentTracker (ST) is of the most valuable tools we have for understanding students’ postsecondary outcomes, including enrollment, transfer, stopout, and attainment.

The NSC held webinars in June and July, the NSC’s Clearinghouse Academy webinar series held webinars titled, “StudentTracker 3.0 101: A Beginner’s Guide for K-12 Districts and Consortiums.” In these webinars, Michele Gralak, Product Manager for ST for High Schools, illuminated some of the new features of ST 3.0, many of which are responsive to feedback offered from NCAN members about how to improve the platform’s experience.

After watching the webinars, I jotted down the things that caught my eyes and ears that I think NCAN’s audiences will also find interesting.

One important overarching caveat: This webinar was aimed at school district and “consortia” subscribers using the StudentTracker for High Schools (STHS) service. All StudentTracker subscribers haven’t been migrated over yet, and it may be some time before community-based college access programs using, for example, StudentTracker for Educational Organizations (STEO) or StudentTracker for Outreach (STOR) get to use ST 3.0. The NSC’s FAQ notes, “We are evaluating the timeline for moving other services. Our current priority is to move all secondary subscribers to the new platform before we begin to migrate other StudentTracker users.”

The “Analysis-Ready Report” Delivers on a Big Wishlist Item

ST offers valuable data on student-level postsecondary outcomes, but the detail file in which that data has typically been delivered has been a stumbling block for far too many users. That’s because the data come in a “long” “student x enrollment” data structure that is tricky to work with for all the savviest analysts and systems. In focus groups and ad hoc feedback, users have long asked for a “wide” file that includes one student per row, which is a format with which far more analysts are used to working.

ST 3.0 delivers that “wide” file with its “Analysis-Ready” report. This file includes one student per row and the key enrollment, persistence, and completion indicators that we’d expect in such a file. For example, there will be first fall, first year, and first two years enrollment indicators, the names of the institution at which that enrollment occurred, and even an indicator for whether a student was retained in year two, which is a new data point that does not appear in the current ST. There will also be fields by student representing the number of institutions they’ve attended and one showing their enrollment pattern.

A screencap from the webinar is below.

This is going to make analyzing the data included in the detail file much easier for a lot of programs to work with. It’s a big win.

Interactive Dashboards Make Quick Insights More Accessible

One of the most highly-touted features of ST 3.0 are the interactive charts that appear on a subscriber’s main dashboard. These display the NSC’s usual top three key performance indicators (KPI) of enrollment, retention/persistence, and graduation. Even better, the dashboard allows user to dive in and “use the filters and breakdowns available on the page to view more granular outcomes,” according to the NSC’s website. This data currently appears in the 40+ page PDF that STHS subscribers receive, but those charts are obviously static, and a dynamic, filterable data visualization allows for easier exploration.

There Are New Data Elements in StudentTracker 3.0

In addition to the usual postsecondary outcomes with which subscribers are familiar, ST 3.0 also adds a few more new elements to the detail file and analysis-ready report. Namely:

• Dual enrollment and credentials earned: See how many of your students enrolled in college while attending high school and received a credential during this time.
• Persistence/Retention: Learn whether your students remained at the same postsecondary institution in the second year (retained) OR moved to a different institution (persisted).
• More credential information: See the number of students who earned certificates, the total number of credentials and the highest credential earned.

The Current StudentTracker Most Users Are Familiar With Isn’t Going Away Yet

One of the questions on the ST 3.0 FAQ, is “When will the current StudentTracker for High Schools service be retired?” and the answer is, “The Clearinghouse expects to have the majority of subscribers on StudentTracker 3.0 before the spring 2025 effective date* and will determine when after that date we will retire StudentTracker for High Schools.” On the webinar, Gralak noted that they hoped to have a better sense of that date at the end of July 2025. Stay tuned!

Programs Will Have to Adjust to “On-Demand Reporting”

Current STHS subscribers know that their data releases revolve around three “effective dates” (roughly November, March, and June) each year at which new data from the preceding semester is pushed to their accounts. These effective dates represent the point at which the NSC has a critical mass of data from postsecondary institutions.

Notably, ST 3.0 is doing away with effective dates. The platform is moving more toward “on-demand reporting” such that when subscribers request reports, the platform will populate them with the latest available data from postsecondary institutions.

I’ll have more to say on this in a future blog post, but this is likely to be a little complicated for subscribers. By the “effective dates,” subscribers could be pretty assured they were getting data from a critical mass of institutions. Under the new system, it will be a little tricker to know whether that’s true about the data they pull. On the webinar, Gralak noted that the NSC will report, by state, the percentage of two- and four-year institutions from which they have data, but notably this report will not show which individual institutions have reported.

The TLDR here is that data based on “on-demand reporting” will probably have to be footnoted with the date the data was pulled. Subscribers sending a lot of students to a given institution will want to look at their detail file data carefully to see if they’ve got data from that institution or not.

More to come on best practice in this area as it develops.

Sharing With Individual High Schools Still Being Worked Out

District and consortia subscribers currently receive an “individual high school packet,” the aforementioned 40+ page PDF, for each high school in their service agreement. Gralak, on the webinar, noted, “We want to make it easier for high schools to get their outcomes.” Consequently, the NSC is trying to facilitate data sharing with high schools through ST 3.0, although that process is yet to be determined. Hypothetically, district-/consortia-level contacts could provide high school-level contacts access to their high school’s data specifically. There’s no further information than that at the moment, and the NSC may have more to come soon on what that might look like.

There’s Still Functionality to Be Added

The NSC is making good and welcomed progress with ST 3.0, but they note there’s still functionality forthcoming. The aforementioned FAQ lists a few outcomes reports that are “not yet ready”:

• Aggregate reports for individual high schools (the academic data elements and enrollment within first two years)
• Trends showing eight years of outcomes
• Longitudinal view of a high school cohort
• Top 25 Colleges First Attended report
• Outcomes from your request file submissions (aka “ad hoc”)

The Upload/Submission Process Hasn’t Changed Yet

The upload/submission process for the ST platform hasn’t historically been a fan favorite, but subscribers will have to wait a little longer to get a new experience on that front. The ST 3.0 FAQ notes, “The timeline for this functionality is being determined.” Data will still be submitted through the FTP, but with ST 3.0 instead of being returned through the FTP it will populate into the StudentTracker platform.

--

The ST 3.0 webinar and materials that the NSC released have been very illuminating for understanding the added functionality in the new platform. I encourage subscribers to check out the User Guide and FAQ as great resources and to keep an eye out for future webinars related to ST 3.0.

As always, NCAN will continue to keep you apprised about new developments on this important tool. Have questions or want to talk more about tracking postsecondary outcomes data? My inbox is always open at debaunb@ncan.org.

Read More:

• NCAN's FAFSA Tracker
• Research Roundup: Credential Outcomes, Gen Z Perspectives, "Some College, No Credential" Growing
• Undergrad Enrollment Up 3.5% This Spring; Two-Years Lead the Way Again

Reading time: Three minutes

It can be hard to keep up with all the latest reports in education related to college access and attainment. Acknowledging that, here are summaries of three recent interesting pieces of research. Are you a National College Attainment Network (NCAN) member who really likes data, evaluation, and research? Email me at debaunb@ncan.org to get involved in our data, evaluation, and research channel on the NCAN Online Practitioner Community!

• Non-Degree Credentials Offer Mixed Returns: The American Enterprise Institute and the Burning Glass Institute analyzed a data set that connected the career histories of more than 65 million Americans with a data set of more than 23,000 nondegree credentials from more than 2,000 providers. These nondegree credentials include, for example, CTE programs and short-term training programs.
  
  Key findings include:
  • Just 12% of credentials provided earners with “significant wage gains.”
  • Credentials in the top decile (10%) “yield annual wage gains of nearly $5,000 and significantly increase career-switching success and advancement opportunities, while bottom-tier credentials provide few or no benefits.”
  • Credentials in the top quarter (25%) offered one-year increases of $3,000, and the median credential boosted earnings by $1,400.
    
    

  Credential Engine identifies more than 1.1 million credentials nationwide. These results underscore the idea that not all credentials offer the same economic boost (let alone likelihood of completion). Students need to make (and need to be able to make) informed choices about the return on their investment.
  

• Surveys Offer Conflicting Vision of Postsecondary Preparation in High School: Students gave their schools a B- on teaching skills relevant to their future, helping to figure out future career plans, and preparing students for education after high school, according to polling from Gallup and the Walton Family Foundation in the 2025 Student Report Card. The grades are up from a C+ last year for “teaching skills” and “future career plans.”
  
  Additional surveying from Gallup, the Walton Family Foundation, and Jobs for the Future shows a steep drop-off in both student and parent knowledge of options after high school beyond a paid job and pursuing a bachelor’s degree. These were the only two options that 50+% of parent respondents indicated knowing “a great deal” or “a lot” about, and they were the only options about which more than 30% of student respondents said the same. Less than 20% of students reported significant familiarity with these pathways: associate’s degree, nondegree credentials, the military, starting a business, and completing an apprenticeship or internship.
  
  While about half of parents reported “frequently” having conversations about postsecondary pathways, that left 47% of parents having these conversations just occasionally or even less frequently. The percentage of Gen Z parents reporting these conversations occurred frequently predictably increased as parental educational attainment increased. Timing matters too: just 43% of parents said they were frequently having these conversations in 10^th grade compared to 65% in 12^th grade.
  
  
• 37.6 million is a big number, and it’s one that represents the “Some College, No Credential” (SCNC) population under age 65 in the United States was about 37.6 million, up 2.2% from the previous year, according to new research from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (NSCRC). Most troubling is that although the number of SCNC students re-enrolling in postsecondary education increased for the second year in a row, the newly stopped out population between January 2022 and July 2023 far outpaced re-enrollment and the number of individuals aging out of the working age SCNC population. States, communities, and institutions are going to have to get a lot better at re-enrolling the SCNC population if adult enrollment is going to offset the upcoming decline in traditional-aged college enrollment.

That’s it for now – have research you’d like to elevate to the rest of the NCAN membership? Let me know at debaunb@ncan.org, and it’ might appear in a future rendition of this series.

Read More:

• Research Roundup: Not Just Financial Aid - Enabling Affordability Guarantees Through Tuition Policy
• Undergrad Enrollment Up 3.5% This Spring; Two-Years Lead the Way Again
• New Survey Data: Financial Realities Undermine Student Success

Reading time: Five minutes

Education Counsel is out with a new report that explores policies that aim to cap or predict the cost of postsecondary education. This report does not recommend a single policy model, but instead examines various design options, the pros and cons of each, and necessary trade-offs to provide students with greater predictability and transparency in the cost of college, termed “Affordability Guarantees.”

While this policy approach is often used by states, localities, and colleges and universities, the US House Education and the Workforce Committee included it in its recent budget reconciliation bill. The bill required institutions receiving PROMISE grants to provide, “a guaranteed maximum total price for a given program of study based on income and financial need categories established by the Secretary... for a minimum period of enrollment (up to six years or the institution’s median time to completion, whichever is less).”

Affordability guarantees address one of the core challenges in college pricing: lack of clarity at the time of purchase. Unlike large consumer investments such as a home or car, the total cost of college is often unknown when students sign on the dotted line. And unlike other public programs like Medicare or Medicaid, which establish reimbursement rates for specific, covered medical products and services, student aid programs do not guarantee a fixed or predictable out-of-pocket cost. Many college websites even say something like: University X specifically reserves the right to increase tuition and other fees without prior notice should conditions be such that an increase is warranted*. Even when tuition doesn’t rise, calculating the fees and full living expenses that a student will owe can be challenging. For a student from a low-income background, this lack of predictability in pricing can deter them from pursuing a degree at all.

Rising sticker prices—even if net prices are stable— also fuel the public perception that college is completely unaffordable. Affordability guarantees aim to flip this burden by centering affordability around the student, not institutional cost structures.

So, what are different ways to structure affordability guarantees, and what is known about their effectiveness? This report describes a few approaches:

• Tuition caps and freezes: These policies provide stability in current pricing, but “may make it more likely that an institution will increase tuition by higher rates in future years to account for cost increases in the intervening period.” This approach “presents a tradeoff between predictability and moderation of price increases over time if there is no other mechanism in place to make up for a rise in underlying operational costs,” the report says.
  
  Purdue University, which is cited as an example, held its sticker price constant for 13 years but increased its proportion of out of state students who pay more. The University of Minnesota system also held tuition in place but received additional state funding to supplement the forgone tuition revenue.
  
  In states with tuition freezes, colleges and universities are “incentivized to pursue a pricing strategy that increases subsequent tuition hikes as a hedge against future cost increases. This can lead to higher average prices across student cohorts than at similar institutions without such tuition freeze policies,” the report says.
  
  
• Net price guarantees: These programs, sometimes called “Promise Programs,” limit out-of-pocket costs for a specified group of students. To keep the price tag manageable:
  • Eligibility will often be limited based on geography, family income, academic qualifications, or other criteria
  • Costs covered will often be limited to tuition and fees and
  • Pell and other federal and state student aid will be counted first, with the “Promise Program” providing the “last dollar.”

Since these programs often depend on public funding, the number of students served and the costs covered may vary from year to year as appropriations fluctuate. The more generous the eligibility guarantee, the more expensive the program.  Promise programs can reduce trust by purporting to offer “free” college when the actual grant covers only tuition and fees.

• Sliding-scale tuition models: This approach involves charging different tuitions rates based on the family income. For example, students from families with earnings below the poverty line would receive free tuition and fees, students from families earning less than the median income in the state would be charged a small portion of the sticker price, and more.

All of these approaches come with trade-offs. In addition to the risks described above, such as changing the composition of the student body to bring in more out of state students, which can limit access for in-state students, setting tuition too low without compensating institutions can harm quality. There is no agreed upon definition of high-quality postsecondary education, so gauging how much funding is truly needed is an art not a science.

The report concludes by saying that affordability guarantees—when well-designed—can make higher education more equitable, predictable, and transparent. But they require:

• Careful policy design aligned with clear goals (e.g., enrollment, access, completion)
• Sustainable funding models
• Student-centered approaches that build trust and reduce financial uncertainty.

National College Attainment Network (NCAN) members engaged in state policy analysis and advocacy should consider their state’s policy and budgetary context, weigh the different options presented in this report, and, “start thinking now about which approaches will best be able to effectively ensure actual affordability that guarantees lower net prices, so that when the next policy window of opportunity opens, they are ready with a clear plan.”

We invite you to join NCAN's webinar on August 6 to learn more about this issue and how it might work best in different contexts.

*this language is pulled directly from the website of a major US university

Read More:

• Undergrad Enrollment Up 3.5% This Spring; Two-Years Lead the Way Again
• New Survey Data: Financial Realities Undermine Student Success
• State Boards Highlight Universal FAFSA, CCR Metrics/Frameworks

Reading time: Three minutes

The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center’s (NSCRC) Current Term Enrollment Estimates (CTEE) report delivered good news for the nation again when it announced that total enrollment is up 3.5% year-over-year. That represents about 15.3 million undergraduates. It’s the third straight spring with an increase, but the United States still isn’t back to spring 2020 (“pre-pandemic”) levels of undergraduate enrollment. Spring 2025 is short of spring 2020 by about 2.4% or 378,000 students.

As has become the norm in these reports in recent years, the national growth has been spurred by community colleges and primarily associate’s granting bachelor’s institutions (PABs). These sectors grew a combined 5.4% this spring, or nearly 288,000 students year-over-year. Enrollment in associate’s-granting programs is up 6.3% overall, and enrollment in public two-year institutions is about 31% of undergraduate enrollment. PABs comprise 6.5% of undergraduate enrollment.

Enrollment in bachelor’s-granting programs is up a mere 2.1% year-over-year, but public, private nonprofit, and private for-profit four-year institutions still represent over 60% of undergraduate enrollment.

The other big risers in this year’s report are certificate programs, which are up 4.8% year-over-year. Undergraduate certificate enrollment is up a whopping 20% over spring 2020 levels.

The CTEE report considers enrollment by race and ethnicity, but we need to take these figures with a grain of salt or, as the NSCRC notes more professionally, “results should be interpreted with caution.” This is because race and ethnicity reporting is “an optional part of the enrollment reports it receives from institutions” and “there are between 11.3 and 14.8% of undergraduates reported with race/ethnicity of Missing, across years in this report.”

Those caveats made, Black undergraduates had a big increase in enrollment this spring (+10.3% year-over-year). Multiracial students also saw their enrollment increase by 8.5%. These are increase of 2% and 14.3%, respectively, relative to the pre-pandemic spring 2020 semester.

In terms of other analyses by demographics, the CTEE report has an interactive Tableau dashboard that allows for selection by race/ethnicity, age, or gender; undergraduate or graduate award level; and sector. The National College Attainment Network (NCAN) encourages members to engage with the NSCRC report to better understand the spring term enrollment outcomes of the students you serve. Unfortunately, there is no proxy for student income or first-generation status.

Beyond student demographics, the CTEE also considers institutional characteristics like sector and locale and has a specific breakout for HBCUs, or historically Black colleges and universities. Most notably it also looks at community colleges’ “program focus” (broken out by high transfer, mixed transfer, and high vocation). This last group, “institutions with at least 53.8% of their awards were considered high career and technical program mix” are up 11.7% year-over-year and 19.4% relative to spring 2020. This, along with the finding about certificate enrollment, show students voting with their feet toward shorter-term programs that are more likely to be directly tied to a workforce pathway.

Beyond the national level, the CTEE allows states to look at year-over-year change in total, undergraduate, and graduate enrollment.

The spring CTEE report follows last fall’s, which showed that undergraduate enrollment for the Fall 2024 semester increased 4.7% over fall 2023, which was a surprising but welcome finding coming off the difficult 2024-25 FAFSA.

Per usual, the NSCRC remains an invaluable source of information on students’ postsecondary outcomes. The National Student Clearinghouse manages enrollment and completion data for upward of 98% of students enrolled in the United States and is the only national source of this data. NCAN will continue to report on the NSCRC’s findings.

Have a question or want to dig in further on this data? I’d love to hear from you. You can reach me at debaunb@ncan.org.

Read More:

• New Survey Data: Financial Realities Undermine Student Success
• State Boards Highlight Universal FAFSA, CCR Metrics/Frameworks
• Research Roundup: Studies Highlight Challenges with College Persistence, Sense of Belonging

Reading time: Six minutes

More than half of surveyed undergraduates would have trouble coming up with $500 and about half of respondents said their financial instability interfered with their ability to focus on their schoolwork.

Students’ postsecondary experiences are shaped by their financial circumstances, and many students are more fragile than many policymakers and members of the public likely realize.

These are the big takeaways from a new report from Trellis Strategies, which puts hard numbers to the how often students are forced to juggle financial pressure, work obligations, and caregiving responsibilities while pursuing a degree or credential. These lived experiences, documented in the Fall 2024 Student Financial Wellness Survey (SFWS), demand a more student-centered approach to postsecondary support that acknowledges the circumstances of today’s students.

Trellis conducted the SFWS at 104 institutions across 27 states, and this year’s SFWS gathered responses from over 53,000 undergraduates. Trellis acknowledges that “it is not strictly representative of the entire nation” and that “it should be considered a convenience sample – albeit an extremely large one.”

Financial Fragility Is Widespread, And It Impacts Students’ Learning

Students’ finances are shaky, with many just one emergency away from real hardship.

• 56% said they would have trouble coming up with $500 in cash or credit to cover an unexpected expense.
• 68% had already run out of money at least once in 2024.
• 71% had experienced financial challenges while in school.
• 48% of those who experienced financial hardship said it interfered with their ability to concentrate on schoolwork.

Students are cobbling together aid from an average of nearly three sources to cover college costs, but:

• Only 5% can fully self-finance with income and savings.
• 34% took out student loans, and 55% of those have more debt than expected.
• Just 37% feel their debt is manageable.

Public assistance and credit are common coping mechanisms:

• 15% received SNAP or other food assistance.
• 20% used Medicaid or CHIP.
• 57% used a credit card in 2024; 89% of those used it to pay for basics like food, housing, or transportation.

Basic Needs Insecurity Is a Barrier to Completion

More than half of students lack secure access to food, housing, or both.

• 58% of all respondents experienced at least one form of basic needs insecurity (i.e., food/housing insecurity or experiencing homelessness).
• 44% reported low or very low food security in the prior 30 days.
• 43% experienced housing insecurity.
• 14% were homeless at some point in the past year.

Certain groups face even higher risks:

• 83% of students with foster care experience experienced basic needs insecurity.
• 71% of Black students faced at least one form of basic needs insecurity.

The National College Attainment Network (NCAN) has previously made policy recommendations around creating and ensuring food and other basic needs security. Find more of our resources and reports on this topic at www.ncan.org.

Mental Health Struggles Persist

“Despite its critical role in persistence, completion, and attainment of credentials of value,” the report notes, “College students report poor mental health at alarming rates.” Many institutions have expanded access to support, but the problem, according to this survey data remains widespread. For example:

• 33% of respondents showed symptoms of major depressive disorder.
• 44% showed signs of generalized anxiety disorder.
• 57% felt lonely sometimes or always.
• 27% were unaware that their campus had counseling or mental health services.

NCAN has a resource library for Supporting the Whole Student Through Mental Health and Wellbeing.

Enrolled Students Are Working—A Lot

While many students help to pay for their college education through work, working too many hours while enrolled is associated with poorer completion outcomes, as noted in NCAN’s Common Measures and elsewhere. Despite that, students need to make ends meet, and employment is the norm, not the exception in the SFWS sample. Being employed often dominates students’ identities.

• 67% of respondents were working for pay while enrolled.
• 43% worked full-time (40+ hours/week), and 25% held more than one job.
• 36% described themselves primarily as “a worker who goes to school.”
• Among full-time students who were employed, 74% worked at least 20 hours per week.

Nearly a Fifth of Students Are Also Caregivers

Students caring for others report frequent class absences and strong potential for stop-out.

• 19% were caregivers or legal guardians to children or other dependents.
• 24% of parenting students missed class due to lack of childcare.
• 34% said they would take fewer classes or drop out if they lost childcare.
• 27% said they’d be less likely to enroll in future semesters in that case.
• Among student parents younger than 25, the risk resulting from a hypothetical loss of childcare was even more impactful. 40% of these respondents said they would need to drop classes or take fewer classes if they lost childcare, and 32% said they would be less likely to enroll in future semesters.

Academic Disruption from Work and Caregiving Is Common

Caregiving and transportation issues, somewhat predictably given the way things work here in the real world, make academic consistency difficult for these survey respondents.

• 25% of working students missed class due to job conflicts.
• 15% of all respondents missed class sometimes due to lack of transportation.
• Among students with cars, 19% said their vehicle was only somewhat or not at all reliable.

But Students Still See the Value in Postsecondary Education

Despite the challenges, and there are a lot of them documented by this valuable resource from Trellis Strategies, the overwhelming majority of surveyed undergraduates still believe in the promise of higher education. For example:

• 84% believe a degree will lead to a higher quality of life.
• 73% say college is a good investment in their financial future.
• Students at two-year colleges were especially likely to feel positively about the value of college and to recommend their institution to others.

What Can NCAN Members Do?

The SFWS reminds us that success isn’t just about academic preparedness, it’s about meeting students where they are with practical supports that acknowledge, accept, and meet the complexity of their lives. Postsecondary leaders, policymakers, practitioners, and advocates can respond by:

• Connecting students to public benefits like SNAP and Medicaid.
• Expanding emergency aid programs to help students weather short-term crises.
• Rethinking course schedules to reduce conflicts with work and family obligations.
• Promoting awareness of on-campus services, particularly mental health supports.
• Designing work-based learning opportunities that align with students’ schedules and financial needs.

The modern learner is often not just a student, but a worker, a parent, and a provider. NCAN members have a critical role to play in shaping systems that support these learners - not in spite of their realities, but because of them.

The statistics above are likely disheartening but not surprising to NCAN members. We know the headwinds our students face navigating all kinds of obstacles to persistence and completion. Still, a survey this large, across so many institutions, carries some weight in quantifying the prevalence of these circumstances. These figures are eye-opening, and important to amplify, in a period where investment in student supports is becoming tenuous.

Explore the full SFWS report and consider how your institution or organization can make data-informed changes to better serve today’s students.

Can we connect you with other partners and groups interested in promoting, for example, basic needs security? Reach out to us at ncan@ncan.org.

Read More:

• State Boards Highlight Universal FAFSA, CCR Metrics/Frameworks
• Research Roundup: Studies Highlight Challenges with College Persistence, Sense of Belonging
• Clearinghouse’s StudentTracker 3.0 Rollout Underway for K-12 Users

Reading time: Three minutes

The State Education Standard, the journal of the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE), is out with a new issue focused on transitions. These are transitions of all kinds, from pre-K to postsecondary, but multiple articles will catch members’ attention. Notably:

• “FAFSA as a Pathway to Postsecondary Education” by the National College Attainment Network's (NCAN) Alessandra Cipriani-Detres and Elizabeth Wood and uAspire’s Anika Van Eaton focuses on what we’ve learned about universal FAFSA’s (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) impacts, compares and contrasts the elements of states’ various universal FAFSA policies, and offers advice to states considering adopting these policies in the future.
  
  
• In “Prioritizing the Measures of K-12 Success That Matter Most,” Ryan Reyna from Education Strategy Group highlights findings from Measurement for Mobility and notes, “While states have made progress in the public reporting of college and career readiness metrics, Measurement for Mobility found that few are weighting those measures heavily within accountability systems or centering longer-term outcomes in their efforts to improve education.”
  
  He suggests, “if the ultimate goal of education is to set students on a path to economic opportunity and mobility, more states need to be emphasizing a second category of K-12 metrics: postsecondary outcomes. Postsecondary outcomes capture students’ progress and success in higher education and the workforce. Specific measures in this category include postsecondary education enrollment (including in two-year colleges, four-year colleges, and short-term certificate or training programs), persistence, and credential attainment. They may also include measures related to military enlistment, employment, and earnings.”
  
  Although nearly every state has public reporting on postsecondary outcomes, just eight include these measures in any kind of accountability structure, and just two states tie funding to them.
  
  Reyna concludes with recommendations for state boards about how to focus more on postsecondary outcomes to drive K-12 practice and programming changes.

• Long-time NCAN blog readers know I am a big fan of Illinois’ Postsecondary and Career Expectations (PaCE) framework, and in the Standard, Emily Rusca at EdSystems walks through the policy’s history, implementation, advantages, and key lessons in “How Illinois Gets Students Ready for College and Careers.” It is surprising that more states have not rolled out PaCE-like frameworks focusing on what students should know and experience related to college and career readiness, but Rusca’s article provides a roadmap for those interested in adapting or adopting such a framework.
  
  
• Finally, a subset of NCAN members begin supporting students in middle school, and “Supporting Students in the Middle Grades” offers some insights into the various statewide approaches that have been successful in Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) states. Including Mississippi’s Middle School Transition Toolkit, which “offers families and schools activities and information to support students as they transition into middle school, during their middle school years, and as they move into high school. It also guides transition teams at the local level. It covers communication, culture, instruction, family engagement, and social-emotional learning and in each of these areas offers activities, strategies, best practices, considerations for select populations and counselors, and digital resources.” It also highlights Louisiana’s Transitional Ninth Grade (T9) program. For more in the middle school arena, also be sure to check out “Promoting Students’ Well-Being during the Transition to High School,” which focuses more on socioemotional supports.

NASBE serves as the only membership organization for state boards of education, and it is extremely encouraging to see the organization focus an entire issue of its journal on these key transition spaces for students. All of the articles are open access, so read (and share widely!) to spread these important ideas in the field!

Read More:

• Research Roundup: Studies Highlight Challenges with College Persistence, Sense of Belonging
• Clearinghouse’s StudentTracker 3.0 Rollout Underway for K-12 Users
• Calling Districts/Schools: Share Your Postsecondary Data Tools for a National Playbook!

Amid growing concerns about educational equity and student success, staff cuts at the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) come at a critical time. NCES is the federal government’s primary source for collecting and analyzing reliable, high-quality education data and plays an essential role in helping educators, policymakers, and researchers understand the challenges facing students from kindergarten through college. From tracking the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic to uncovering disparities in postsecondary outcomes, NCES data has been vital in shaping responsive and informed education policies.

NCES data, from the effects of COVID-19 pandemic disruptions to financial aid disparities, offers a comprehensive view of the challenges impacting college attainment. While progress has been made in broadening access to higher education, significant gaps remain in completion rates and postsecondary success.

The NCES First Look Report Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:20/22): Persistence and Attainment of 2019–20 First-Time Postsecondary Students After 3 Years highlights a trend: many students who began their college journey in 2019–20 did not earn a credential within three years. According to data representing more than 27,000 students, the report highlights key findings:

• Among enrolled students, 7% completed an associate's degree, 5% obtained a certificate by 2023.
• Despite this, over half (65%) of students remain enrolled, signaling that a sizable portion of students are continuing their education, though many without the guaranteed outcome of a degree or certificate.
• While 79% of students were still enrolled at four-year institutions, 15% of students had completely withdrawn.

It is even more evident now that the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these challenges. The shift to online learning disrupted not only academic progress but also students’ ability to stay engaged.

• The shift to online learning led to 31% of credential earners reporting lower-than-expected grades, compared to 41% of non-credential earners.
• The stress caused by this shift was compounded by broader social and economic disruptions. 73% of students reported increased anxiety, while basic needs insecurities, such as housing and food, affected 15% and 12% of students, respectively.

The Role of High School Academic Experiences in Postsecondary Success

The journey toward postsecondary attainment starts long before college. Alongside academics, research emphasizes the impact of high school social experiences on feelings of belonging and subsequent postsecondary success.

NCES’s Digest of Education Statistics tables, using data from the High School and Beyond Longitudinal Study of 2022 (HS&B:22), represent a study of over 18,000 9th grade students from fall 2022 through spring 2023.

Among 9th graders, those in the lowest fifth quartile math ranking groups reported higher feelings of disconnection from school, with nearly 29% feeling like outsiders, compared to only 11% in the highest 5th quartile ranking groups. The pandemic's impact on K-12 education also looms large here. By 2022, 87% of 9th graders had participated in some form of online learning during the 2020-21 school year. For students who reported receiving all instruction in person (13%) during the 2020-21 school year, students on average reported higher confidence in math and English skills compared to their peers who engaged in all or some online learning.

Family engagement is another critical factor shaping students' academic success and persistence. Data from the NCES Parent and Family Involvement in Education Survey show that while most parents were satisfied with their children’s education, many expressed concerns about the school environment and academic quality.

Additionally, the rise of homeschooling and virtual learning reflects a shift in parental preferences. In 2022, 5.2% of students received full-time instruction at home, up from 3.7% in 2018–19. Parents who chose homeschooling often cited concerns about the school environment (83%) and a desire to provide moral instruction (75%).

Student success is shaped by academic and social factors, and the insights provided by NCES are indispensable. The data collected and analyzed by NCES allows us to trace students' educational journeys from 9th grade through postsecondary attainment, and to identify barriers along the way. As staff cuts and the potential for decreased funding threaten the depth and quality of the future of this critical research, we risk losing access to invaluable data that shows what works and where we need to improve in education broadly.

Read More:

• Clearinghouse’s StudentTracker 3.0 Rollout Underway for K-12 Users
• Calling Districts/Schools: Share Your Postsecondary Data Tools for a National Playbook!
• $100K Grants Available for Increasing Use of Postsecondary Outcomes Data

Reading time: Three minutes

National College Attainment Network (NCAN) members have heard us talk about the National Student Clearinghouse’s (NSC) StudentTracker 3.0 platform, which represents a major enhancement to its StudentTracker for High Schools service. In exciting and welcome news, Michele Gralak, the StudentTracker secondary product manager, recently informed NCAN that the NSC has begun enabling current StudentTracker for High School subscribers to access StudentTracker 3.0.

“We’re so excited to share StudentTracker 3.0 with our users and the response by users who have been migrated to the new platform has been quite positive. Users appreciate how easy it is to use and find the access to real-time data and the new learner outcomes we added to be especially valuable,” Gralak said in a recent NSC blog. “We’ve been deliberate in our rollout of StudentTracker 3.0 since it is so different from StudentTracker for High Schools in order to ensure users have time to get acquainted with the new platform.”

StudentTracker 3.0 is a welcome development for the college access and attainment field given the importance of being able to access, analyze, and share postsecondary outcomes data to improve programming for students and better understand program impact.

NCAN believes that StudentTracker is a critical tool for understanding what happens to students after high school graduation, and we’ve long advocated for its use by districts and schools and for states to expand postsecondary outcomes data sharing through their own use of the platform.

StudentTracker 3.0 aims to improve on the current StudentTracker experience in a few ways. First, with interactive, filterable dashboards that allow for users to examine enrollment, persistence, and completion outcomes by various student characteristics. Additionally, the platform moves away with “effective dates” and provides on-demand reports of postsecondary outcomes. More features are available at the NSC's blog..

The NSC’s StudentTracker 3.0 landing page includes various resources related to the new platform, including the 3.0 user manual, FAQs with mapping documents for the student-level detail report and the analysis ready report, and Clearinghouse Academy tutorials. The NSC’s blog also offers insights into the benefits of the platform.

Related to the StudentTracker platform and other ways to use data effectively, NCAN recently transitioned its Data, Research, and Evaluation listserv (previously at ncan-data@ncan.org) to the NCAN Online Practitioner Community (OPC) hosted on Slack. NCAN members can sign up for the OPC here where they can communicate topics like FAFSA, or Free Application for Federal Student Aid, and financial aid, data and research, and, soon, other topics of interest to the field! 

Stay tuned to the NSC's website and the NCAN blog for more exciting updates about the StudentTracker platform!

Read More:

• Calling Districts/Schools: Share Your Postsecondary Data Tools for a National Playbook!
• $100K Grants Available for Increasing Use of Postsecondary Outcomes Data
• NSCRC’s College Completion Rates Hit Record Highs
  

Reading time: Three minutes

Well, it’s time once again to turn on the data bat signal. Education Strategy Group (ESG) is developing a District Postsecondary Data Playbook, a publicly-available resource designed to help school districts improve their use of data to support students' college and career readiness. To make this playbook as impactful as possible, ESG is seeking real-world tools and resources that districts are already using to track and improve postsecondary and workforce outcomes.

ESG is looking for district-level examples and resources that highlight how data is used to improve and guide postsecondary outcomes, including but not limited to dashboards, strategic plans, training materials, advising templates, or data-sharing agreements. Your tools can help other districts refine their approaches and ensure more students have a clear path to success after high school.

This effort is related to the District Framework for Postsecondary Success, which the National College Attainment Network (NCAN) introduced to members last year. This framework focuses on creating the foundational supports necessary to increase postsecondary success. It highlights five key conditions that districts should strive to create.

Back to the Data Playbook. While all resources are welcome, ESG is especially interested in materials that align with three key areas of data practice:

• Data Leadership:
  • Strategic plans that explicitly center postsecondary outcomes
  • Metrics dashboards tracking progress toward key goals
  • Organizational charts and job descriptions for college and career readiness (CCR) roles
• Data Infrastructure:
  • Data-sharing agreements with higher education and community partners
  • Clear definitions and documentation of postsecondary and workforce success metrics
  • Internal and external data dashboards that monitor student outcomes
• Data Use for Student Success:
  • Training materials for district staff on data collection and use
  • Meeting protocols and continuous improvement plans based on postsecondary data
  • Advising templates and student-facing tools, such as college match and return-on-investment (ROI) worksheets

If you have resources to share, please send them to me, Bill DeBaun, at debaunb@ncan.org and CC ajones@edstrategy.org. A brief description of what you’re submitting would be great but honestly is not critical if it’s self-explanatory. Even if your materials don’t fit neatly into the categories above, we’re is eager to review any tools that could benefit other districts.

By contributing to the District Postsecondary Data Playbook, you’re not just sharing resources—you’re helping to build a national repository of best practices that will empower districts to make data-driven decisions that improve student outcomes. Your expertise and experience can help shape the future of postsecondary data use and ensure more students achieve success beyond high school.

Thank you for supporting this critical effort. We look forward to seeing the innovative tools and strategies NCAN members bring to the table!

Read More:

• $100K Grants Available for Increasing Use of Postsecondary Outcomes Data
• NSCRC’s College Completion Rates Hit Record Highs
• New NAEP Data Sound Early Warning for Postsecondary Pipeline

The national six-year completion rate for students who entered college in the fall of 2018 was 61.1%, according to data released last December from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (NSCRC). This rate was the highest recorded among entering cohorts from 2007 to 2018. The 61.1% was a 0.5% increase from the previous year.

The increase was fueled by a decrease in student stopouts and improvements to public two-year postsecondary institutions. More than 2.3 million students entered a postsecondary institution for the first time in fall of 2018.

The eight-year postsecondary completion rate, 64.7% for the fall 2016 entering cohort, also rose to the highest level recorded by the NSCRC. The increase was due to improvements in the six-year completion rate (the percentage of students who completed college in six or seven years decreased from 2007 to 2016).

Data from the NSCRC also showed that full-time students who started in fall of 2018 were more likely to earn a college degree, as 67.2% of students completed college within six years and only 25.4% of students dropped out. Part-time students who started in fall of 2018 experienced 52.4% dropout rates and only 33.7% of part-time students in this cohort finished college within six years.

Four-year public, two-year public, and four-year private nonprofit institutions, specifically, saw increases in six-year completion rates from 2007 to 2018. In 2007, four-year public schools, two-year public schools, and four-year private nonprofit schools saw 64.9%, 36.8%, and 71% completion rates, respectively. In 2018, 4-year public schools, 2-year public schools, and 4-year private nonprofit schools saw 70.7%, 43.4%, and 75.5% completion rates, respectively. Two-year public schools, more specifically, saw a 6.6% increase in six-year completion rates.

Across most state lines, six-year completion rates for students who entered college in fall of 2018 remained consistent. Only 10 states saw completion rate improvements of 1% or more.

Unfortunately, the six-year completion rate for students aged 25 and older who entered in fall of 2018 decreased compared to the previous cohort. Additionally, students from higher income backgrounds had higher completion rates than students from lower income backgrounds.

Over time, completion rates within Asian, Black, Latino/a, and white student communities rose. Only students of Asian descent from the lowest neighborhood income quintile saw a six-year completion rate above the national average. But almost all of the largest ethno-racial communities from the highest neighborhood income quintile saw completion rates higher than the national average.

You can read the full report here.

Read More:

• NCAN Convening Highlights Urgent Need for Better Postsecondary Data Sharing
• NCAN Member Program Benchmarking Project
• New Study: College Savings Accounts Closed Enrollment Gaps by One-Third

Reading time: Two minutes

Last year’s 4^th and 8^th grade students won’t be filling out college applications for some years, but their performance on last year’s National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), referred to as “the nation’s report card” are an early warning about academic achievement trends that need to be reversed, and quickly, to ensure all students are prepared for education after high school.

A summary of the new results is available here.

“I don’t know how many different ways you can say these results are bad, but they’re bad,” Dan Goldhaber, an education researcher at the American Institutes for Research and the University of Washington, told The Washington Post’s Laura Meckler.

The new data from the 2024 NAEP cover math and reading assessments for 4^th and 8^th graders. The assessments were administered early last year. The US Department of Education summarizes this year’s results:

“Compared to 2022:

• Average score increased in mathematics at grade 4; no significant change at grade 8.
• Average scores declined in reading at both grades.
• No significant change for most states in both subjects and grades.
• Lower percentages of students absent 5 or more days in both subjects and grades.”

Unfortunately, most grade-by-subject combinations have fallen relative to the pre-COVID-19 pandemic administration of the NAEP assessment, which represents an even more significant slide where decreases occurred relative to 2022.

Worryingly, score declines were concentrated for lower-performing students. Taking 4^th grade reading as an example, students scoring at the 50^th (median) percentile saw their scores drop five points relative to 2019. For the 25^th and 10^th percentile of test-takers, those declines were 12 and 10 points, respectively. Conversely, students at the 90^th and 75^th percentile of scores saw their declines drop just one and three points respectively.

There has been a tremendous amount of conversation coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic about “learning loss” at all levels, and unfortunately these data show that there has been loss, and it has been slow to be regained for too many students. There are many contributors to the dispiriting assessment results, but the NAEP does offer insight into a key contributor to students’ achievement: their time in the classroom. Among 4^th and 8^th graders who took the NAEP mathematics exam, about 30% were absent three or more days from school in the previous month; extrapolated across a 10 month academic year, that’s 30 or more days of school missed.

The Nation’s Report Card web site allows for all kinds of analyses at the state, grade, subject, and “large district” levels and are worth consideration. Not just because academic achievement matters for our 4^th and 8^th graders today, but also because these students will be those National College Attainment Network (NCAN) members are serving through Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) completion, college application assistance, and other supports tomorrow. The college-going pipeline has enough leaks and obstacles already; our students, communities, and nation cannot afford further backsliding in academic achievement to become another.

Read More:

• New Study: Universal FAFSA Increased Completion, (Some) Enrollment in Texas
• Freshman Enrollment Grows 5.5% in Fall 2024 in Encouraging, Surprising Change
• A Closer Look at Students, Parents, and Professionals’ 2024-25 FAFSA Experiences