The embargo is off, the tinkering has been done, and a set of tertiary league tables can be released! But I warn you that there is some boring stuff to read first – irresponsible users of data can skip to the end. This first post covers quite a bit of ground, but there is much more to be explored in the data. Given the format in which TEC has supplied the data, it is difficult to do much useful analysis quickly – I really appreciate the early provision of data from the TEC, but I’m probably going to have to hire someone to do data entry in order to do much useful with it. TEC data is here.

TEC’s CE, Roy Sharp, said that “Today’s release of tertiary education performance information will allow the general public to understand more about how their local tertiary providers are performing”. The indicators being released by TEC are (full TEC technical report here):

• successful course completion (all EFTS completed a course/all EFTS enrolled in a course, but only covering courses expected to end in the relevant year);
• completion of qualifications (all qual completions multiplied by EFTS value/total EFTS enrolled in courses);
• student progression to higher level study (number of students enrolled in a higher qual within 12 months following qual completion/number of students completing a qual in year n); and
• students retained in study (the proportion of students that re-enrol in year n+1 or complete a qual in year n or n+1/students enrolled in year n).

Roy went on to say “For the first time we are releasing information that can be used to make year on year comparisons of tertiary providers’ performance…Providers have put in a lot of effort to prepare their information and to make it accurate. I would like to thank them for their work in this process.” He also pointed students and parents to tertiary provider websites and Career Services for more info about tertiary education.

Of the four indicators released today, course completions and qualification completions are the most useful, as they provide an indicator of students’ progression in their goals. The other two indicators are TEC creations that are unlikely to be very relevant to the general public, largely because they are only meaningful at a course or qualification level – if a qual is designed to get you a job, then a low progression to further education will not matter to students.

The data only relates to domestic students funded at providers through the Student Achievement Component. ITO data will be released at a later date.

Every provider has a snazzy PDF provided for them, listing the aggregate results for their subsector (eg ITPs, PTEs, universities) on p.1, the provider stats on p.2 and the subsector rankings on p.3. Below I’ve provided the main subsector stats and a further post will have TEI stats.

If you look at the course and qual completions above, universities seems to be highest, with PTEs in second – what that means will wait for another post. A Courses v Qualifications chart by David Choat, my colleague at ED, shows that there is an apparent relationship between the two, as you would expect.

The detailed info is being published at an organisation, rather than a course or programme, level. This will make it largely useless for most students seeking info on public tertiary education institutions, as the aggregate figures will not provide any useful pointer to a specific course or programme. The figures will be a useful guide for students looking at  PTEs and OTEPs, which usually have a much tighter subject focus and fewer programmes. Of course, this release is largely intended to focus on organisational performance and is a preparation for more detailed data releases in future years (that’s not TEC’s official line, but my prediction). Releasing the data will expose the differences between organisations and drive some policy and practice changes.