Using Workforce Information for Degree Program Planning in Texas

Abstract

In May 2013, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 1296, requiring the Texas Education Agency to distribute information to public school students about higher education institutions and workforce needs in the state. Specifically, the bill calls for comparisons on higher education institutions in terms of tuition costs, student debt, retention and graduation rates, and employment outcomes. The bill also requires disseminating the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) projections of future occupational demands and annual wages for the jobs in highest demand.The bill further requires the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), in conjunction with TWC, to prepare a report on Texas's future workforce needs that would help inform decisions to develop or expand postsecondary education programs. This portion of the bill is the motivation for the present report.Educators and policymakers in Texas and elsewhere have a wide variety of quantitative and qualitative workforce information available for planning degree and certificate programs in colleges and universities. To help guide use of such resources, The College for All Texans Foundation, which works to further the objectives of THECB, asked RAND Education, a unit of the RAND Corporation, to conduct this study. It examines the quantitative and qualitative sources of information on workforce needs. It reviews common techniques for quantitative modeling using workforce data, as well as how institutions and states may use these data to inform decisions about degree programs.It also develops some data tools and recommends ways to use workforce information in degree program planning.This study was made possible by the generosity of the Houston Endowment.

Career Services and College-Employer Partnership Practices in Community Colleges: Colleges in California, Ohio, and Texas

“…In a 2015 RAND report, we examined the use of this and other tools. We found little evidence that such tools are widely used (Goldman et al, 2015).…”

“…Several other policies aside from funding may be related to student employment. For instance, states with a program approval process often require evidence of labor market need and employer interest in proposed programs (e.g., Texas, as described in Goldman et al, 2015). One policy topic that arose in almost every one of our case studies is program advisory committees, so we briefly review the policy basis for these committees here.…”

“…In Texas, statewide and regional occupation need projections are produced to guide community colleges in developing programs to meet labor market needs (Goldman et al, 2015). The state also supports workforce development education by publishing the Workforce Education Course Manual, which provides community and technical colleges with a web-based inventory of courses in a variety of technical fields that have already been approved by THECB and a statewide advisory committee (THECB, undated c).…”

Air Force Nonrated Technical Training: Selected Topics to Improve Efficiency

“…Institutions use these databases to gauge career field demand from previous years and to predict changes in demand (Karam et al, 2017). Relatedly, institutions can use more-sophisticated modeling methodologies, such as stock or flow models, to account for the composition of the workforce in addition to labor market demand when predicting future needs (Goldman et al, 2015).…”

Growth of Burden in Federal and State Reporting

“…Although the information is collected, compiled, and connected by state agencies, the foundation relies on accurate institutional data. As reporting workforce data can be challenging for institutions, Goldman et al () recommended states provide institutions with “data resources, important information on these resources, and examples of promising practices in using workforce data” to encourage consistent data reporting (p. 8). Clearly defined data and processes that allow linking student data to workforce data at the state level can minimize the burden on institutions substantially.…”