This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-143
entitled 'Postsecondary Education: Student Outcomes Vary at For-
Profit, Nonprofit, and Public Schools' which was released on December
7, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
December 2011:
Postsecondary Education:
Student Outcomes Vary at For-Profit, Nonprofit, and Public Schools:
GAO-12-143:
Contents:
Letter:
Limited Research Suggests that For-Profit School Students Generally
Have Different Outcomes than Nonprofit or Public School Students:
For-Profit School Graduates Generally Had Lower Pass Rates than
Graduates from Other Schools on Licensing Exams We Reviewed:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: List of Studies and Ongoing Research Included in Our
Literature Review:
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing Exam Pass Rates:
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Studies Included in GAO's Report, By Student Outcomes:
Table 2: RN (Bachelor's Degrees): Number of Programs and First Time
Test Takers, by Sector:
Table 3: RN (Bachelor's Degree): Student Pass Rate and Mean Program
Pass Rate, by Sector:
Table 4: RN (Associate's Degree): Number of Programs and First Time
Test Takers, by Sector:
Table 5: RN (Associate's Degree): Student Pass Rate and Mean Program
Pass Rate, by Sector:
Table 6: LPN: Number of Programs and First Time Test Takers, by Sector:
Table 7: LPN: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rate, by Sector:
Table 8: Radiography: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector:
Table 9: Radiography: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates,
by Sector:
Table 10: EMT: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector:
Table 11: EMT: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates, by
Sector:
Table 12: Paramedic: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector:
Table 13: Paramedic: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates, by
Sector:
Table 14: Surgical Technologist: Number of Programs and Test Takers,
by Sector:
Table 15: Surgical Technologist: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program
Pass Rates, by Sector:
Table 16: Massage Therapist: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by
Sector:
Table 17: Massage Therapist: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass
Rates, by Sector:
Table 18: Law: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector:
Table 19: Law: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates, by
Sector:
Table 20: Cosmetology: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector:
Table 21: Cosmetology: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rate,
by Sector:
Table 22: Funeral Directors: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by
Sector (All Programs):
Table 23: Funeral Directors: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by
Sector (Associate's Programs Only):
Table 24: Funeral Directors: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass
Rates, by Sector (All Programs):
Table 25: Funeral Directors: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass
Rates, by Sector (Associate's Programs Only):
Figures:
Figure 1: Nursing: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-2010:
Figure 2: Radiography: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-
2010:
Figure 3: EMT Basic: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-2010:
Figure 4: Paramedic: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-2010:
Figure 5: Surgical Technologists: Number of Programs by Pass Rate
Range, 2010:
Figure 6: Massage Therapist: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range,
2008-2010:
Figure 7: Law: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-2010:
Figure 8: Cosmetology: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-
2010:
Figure 9: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range on Sciences Section,
2008-2010 (Associate's Programs Only):
Abbreviations:
ABFSE: American Board of Funeral Service Education:
BPS: Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study:
CIP: Classification of Instructional Programs:
Education: Department of Education:
EMT: Emergency Medical Technician:
ERIC: Education Resources Information Center:
IPEDS: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System:
LPN: Licensed Practical Nurse:
NPSAS: National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey:
NSLDS: National Student Loan Data System:
NTIS: National Technical Information Service:
OIG: Office of Inspector General:
RN: Registered Nurse:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 7, 2011:
Congressional Requesters:
Institutions of higher education, including for-profit, nonprofit, and
public schools, receive billions of dollars each year from the
Department of Education (Education) to help students pay for school.
[Footnote 1] In the 2009-2010 school year, Education provided $132
billion in grants and loans to students under federal student aid
programs, up from $49 billion in the 2001-2002 school year.[Footnote
2] However, relatively little information is available about the
quality of education being provided by these schools.[Footnote 3]
Measuring the quality of educational programs (i.e., how much
knowledge or skill students gain) is difficult. Because few direct
measures are available, indirect outcome measures, such as graduation
and student loan default rates, are often used. Although no single
outcome can be used to fully measure something as complex as
educational quality, looking at multiple outcome measures (e.g.,
graduation rates, pass rates on licensing exams, employment outcomes,
and student loan default rates) can shed light on the quality of
education provided by schools.
Student characteristics are also important to consider when comparing
educational outcomes at schools in different sectors (for-profit,
nonprofit, and public).[Footnote 4] Available data indicate that for-
profit schools enroll a higher proportion of low-income, minority, and
nontraditional students who face challenges that can affect their
educational outcomes. Students with these characteristics tend to have
less positive educational outcomes than other students for a number of
reasons. For example, students who are low-income, minority, or older
generally have lower graduation rates than other students regardless
of sector.[Footnote 5] Consequently, student outcomes at different
types of schools can be associated with differences in student
characteristics, as well as school type. Accounting for differences in
student characteristics as much as possible allows for more meaningful
comparisons between types of schools and a better understanding of the
school's role in producing student outcomes. This can be done in
different ways, such as using statistical models or comparing outcomes
for similar groups of students or graduates.
To respond to your interest in student outcomes at different types of
schools, this report addresses the following questions.
1. What does research show about graduation rates, employment
outcomes, student loan debts, and default rates for students at for-
profit schools compared to those at nonprofit and public schools,
taking differences in student characteristics into account?
2. How do pass rates on licensing exams for selected occupations
compare among graduates of for-profit, nonprofit, and public schools?
We used the following methodologies to develop our findings (see
appendix I for a detailed discussion of our scope and methodologies).
We began by contacting representatives from several higher education
associations representing schools in all three sectors to obtain their
perspectives on key issues discussed in this report. To identify
comparative research on outcomes that controls for student
characteristics, we conducted a literature search and rigorously
reviewed the data and methodologies used by external researchers and
only reported findings that were based on sound methods and reliable
data.
* For most outcomes we reviewed, we relied primarily on studies using
data from Education's Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal
Study (BPS), which tracks a nationally representative sample of first-
time students for 6 years. BPS graduation rates are more
representative of first-time students than graduation rates from other
data sources because they include part-time and transfer students. BPS
also collects self-reported information on earnings and employment
status, as well as extensive data on student characteristics.
* Some of the graduation rate studies included in our review used data
from Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS). IPEDS captures detailed enrollment data from all schools
participating in federal student aid programs; however, IPEDS
graduation rates include only full-time, first-time students and
exclude a significant number of other students (e.g., those who attend
part-time or transfer to another school). Because of this limitation,
we gave greater weight in our report to studies using BPS data to
calculate graduation rates; however, studies using IPEDS data had
similar results.
* Studies in our review that analyzed debt levels used data from
Education's National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS), which
collects detailed data on financial aid and student loans for a large,
nationally representative sample of students.
* One study in our review analyzed school default rates using data
from the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS), which is
Education's central database for federal student aid loans and grants.
We found a relatively small number of studies that compared student
outcomes across sectors and accounted for differences in student
characteristics (see appendix II for the list of studies included in
our literature review). This body of research also has certain
limitations. For example, while BPS has some of the best available
data on outcomes and student characteristics, it does not represent
the experience of more recent students[Footnote 6]. Further, while two
studies in our review conducted regression analyses that account for
multiple student characteristics simultaneously (which allows for a
more rigorous comparison), other studies analyzed subgroups of
students, accounting for a single characteristic at a time. Despite
these limitations, we believe that the studies included in our review
provide insight on the comparative outcomes of students attending
different types of schools.
To compare the performance of graduates from for-profit, nonprofit,
and public schools on professional licensing exams, we analyzed pass
rates for selected exams for first-time test takers.[Footnote 7] For
this analysis, we focused on schools that participate in federal
student aid programs. We selected occupations in which passing an exam
was generally required and significant work experience was not
required prior to taking the exam. We also used Education data to
select occupations that (1) had programs in multiple sectors,
including the for-profit sector, and (2) had sufficiently large
numbers of students graduating from these programs. When possible, we
used exams offered by national organizations to maximize the number of
states in our analysis. We excluded from our analyses states that did
not require the exam in an occupation. For occupations that use state
or multiple exams, we used Education data to select four states in
which the numbers of graduates and the distribution of graduates
across sectors provided the best chance to detect any statistically
significant differences that might exist between sectors. Results for
individual states are not generalizable to other states and it is
possible that sector comparisons in other states would show different
results or would differ as to whether the results were statistically
significant.
Because demographic information on test takers was generally not
available, directly controlling for the characteristics of test takers
in our analyses was not possible. However, because our analysis of
licensing exam pass rates focuses on outcomes for program graduates,
it may partially mitigate the effect of differences in student
characteristics on exam results since some characteristics, such as
race, age, and income, are associated with lower graduation rates.
We assessed the reliability of the data from each test included in our
analyses by interviewing representatives knowledgeable about the data,
reviewing relevant data and related documentation, and conducting
additional analyses. We determined that these exam data were
sufficiently reliable for the purpose of comparing pass rates across
sectors. For more detailed results from our analyses of licensing exam
pass rates, see appendix III.
We conducted our work from November 2010 to December 2011 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings. On November 10,
2011, we briefed cognizant congressional staff on the results of this
study and this report formally conveys the information provided during
these briefings. (See appendix IV for the slides we used to brief the
requesters.)
Limited Research Suggests that For-Profit School Students Generally
Have Different Outcomes than Nonprofit or Public School Students:
The small number of available studies that accounted for selected
student characteristics, such as gender, race, or income, suggests
that student outcomes vary by type of school. Student outcomes include
graduation rates, employment outcomes, student loan debt, and default
rates.
Graduation Rates:
Two studies show that for-profit school students had higher graduation
rates for certificate programs, similar graduation rates for
associate's degree programs, and lower graduation rates for bachelor's
degree programs than students at nonprofit and public
schools.[Footnote 8] For example, one study found that 36 percent of
low-income students who started at for-profit schools completed a
certificate, compared to 6 percent at 2-year public schools.[Footnote
9] In contrast, 3 percent of low-income students who started at for-
profit schools completed a bachelor's degree, compared to 49 percent
at 4-year public schools and 13 percent at 2-year public schools.
[Footnote 10]
Employment Outcomes:
An ongoing study suggests that students who started at for-profit
schools had similar annual earnings, but higher rates of unemployment
compared to students who started at nonprofit and public schools. For
example, students who started at for-profit schools during the 2003-
2004 school year and were no longer enrolled after 6 years were more
likely to have been unemployed for more than 3 months, compared to
students who started at nonprofit and public schools.
Student Loan Debt:
Three studies show that a higher proportion of bachelor's degree
recipients from for-profit schools took out student loans and that
they generally had higher total student loan debt than bachelor's
degree recipients from nonprofit and public schools. For example, one
study shows that, among low-income students who graduated in 2007-
2008, the percentage who borrowed was greater at for-profit schools
(99 percent) than at nonprofit and public schools (83 and 72 percent,
respectively).
Default Rates:
Two studies show that for-profit schools have higher default rates
than 4-year public schools, but the results are mixed when comparing
for-profit schools to other types of schools. One ongoing study shows
that for-profit schools had a higher proportion of students default on
their student loans than 4-year nonprofit schools and 2-year nonprofit
and public schools, while the other study did not find any
statistically significant differences between for-profit schools and
these other types of schools[Footnote 11].:
For-Profit School Graduates Generally Had Lower Pass Rates than
Graduates from Other Schools on Licensing Exams We Reviewed:
On 9 of the 10 licensing exams we reviewed, graduates of for-profit
schools generally had lower pass rates over the 2008-2010 period.
Exam Results:
The nine licensing exams for which graduates of for-profit schools
generally had lower pass rates were for Registered Nurses (RN),
Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN), Radiographers, Emergency Medical
Technicians (EMT), Paramedics, Surgical Technologists, Massage
Therapists, Lawyers, and Cosmetologists. On some exams, the
differences across sectors were statistically significant, but
relatively small. For example, 85 percent of graduates earning a
bachelor's degree from for-profit nursing programs passed the RN exam,
compared to 87 percent of such graduates from nonprofit schools. While
we were unable to calculate overall pass rates on the 10th exam (for
Funeral Directors), separate analyses of the two sections of the exam
suggest that graduates of for-profit schools had similar or better
pass rates than graduates of nonprofit and public schools.[Footnote
12] While for-profit graduates as a group generally had lower pass
rates, some individual for-profit schools had relatively high pass
rates. For example, 9 of the 40 for-profit schools in our analysis of
the radiographer exam had pass rates of 100 percent in 2010.[Footnote
13]
Limitations:
Several experts and higher education association officials said that
licensing exam pass rates are one reasonable measure of school
quality. However, exam pass rates also have some limitations when used
for this purpose. For example, relatively few postsecondary graduates
overall take licensing exams, as many occupations do not require a
license. Further, pass rates on licensing exams only measure the
performance of students who both complete a program and take the exam.
Data were not available to compare the total number of students who
begin a program with those who take the exam. Consequently, a high
pass rate may not provide complete information about the quality of a
program if a large number of enrolled students do not finish a program
or do not take a licensing exam.[Footnote 14]
Differences in student populations may also affect pass rates. While
focusing on graduates can mitigate the effect of differences in
student characteristics, it may not completely eliminate the impact of
these characteristics on test results. Nevertheless, the federal
government has a strong interest in ensuring that schools that receive
federal student aid funds are appropriately preparing graduates for
any required licensing exams.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft copy of this report to Education for review and
comment. Education did not have comments on the report. In addition,
we shared relevant sections of the draft report with (1) the authors
of studies included in our literature review and (2) the states and
entities that provided licensing exam data to us. We incorporated
their technical comments as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional
committees, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties.
In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO's
website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to
this report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
George A. Scott:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
Congressional Requesters:
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin:
Majority Whip:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Tom Harkin:
Chairman:
The Honorable Michael B. Enzi:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Lamar Alexander:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John Kline:
Chairman:
The Honorable George Miller:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Virginia Foxx:
Chairwoman:
The Honorable Rubén Hinojosa:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Robert Andrews:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Timothy Bishop:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Alcee L. Hastings:
House of Representatives:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To help us identify data sources on student outcomes and recent
research comparing student outcomes across sectors (for-profit,
nonprofit, and public), we interviewed officials from the Department
of Education (Education) and Education's Office of Inspector General
(OIG). We also spoke with 10 higher education experts and researchers,
as well as representatives from 6 higher education associations, 6
postsecondary school accreditors, and 8 state agencies that oversee
postsecondary institutions.[Footnote 15] We also reviewed relevant
federal laws and regulations. To address our objectives, we (1)
conducted a structured literature review of recent studies comparing
selected postsecondary student outcomes at for-profit and nonprofit
and/or public schools and (2) collected and analyzed pass rate data
for selected licensing exams for first-time test takers from for-
profit, nonprofit, and public schools, focusing on schools that
participate in federal student aid programs.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2010 through
December 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings based on our audit objectives. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings based on our audit objectives.
Literature Review:
To identify recent research on comparative postsecondary student
outcomes at for-profit, nonprofit, and public schools, we conducted a
structured literature review. We searched numerous bibliographic
databases--including Education Resources Information Center (ERIC),
ProQuest, Education Journals, PsycINFO, National Technical Information
Service (NTIS), EconLit, and WorldCat--for articles or studies
published from January 2000 through July 2011 that used data from 2000
or later.[Footnote 16] We employed a variety of search strategies to
identify research related to student outcomes such as graduation
rates, employment outcomes, earnings, student loan indebtedness, and
default rates. In addition to searching the bibliographic databases,
we identified studies through citations in previously identified work
and through a review of several higher education news publications. We
also asked higher education associations, researchers, and Education
officials to identify any relevant studies and included such studies
in our review. We defined "studies" broadly to include published peer-
reviewed journal articles; ongoing studies submitted to journals for
formal publication by academic researchers; unpublished studies by
higher education associations, academic researchers, and other
experts; and studies issued or commissioned by different higher
education associations, researchers, the Congressional Research
Service, or Education.
In order to focus on studies that compared postsecondary student
outcomes at for-profit and nonprofit and/or public schools, we
examined all initial search results and restricted our formal review
to studies meeting the following criteria:
* focused on the U.S. student population;
* used at least some data collected in 2000 or later;
* addressed at least one of the following student outcomes: graduation
rates, earnings, employment outcomes, student loan debt, and default
rates;
* compared outcomes of for-profit schools with outcomes of nonprofit
and/or public schools; and:
* contained original analysis controlling for at least one student
characteristic (e.g., race, gender, and age).
We identified 32 studies that met these screening criteria. For each
of these studies, we conducted a rigorous review of the research
methodology, including the research design; objectives; data source;
analyses conducted; and any applicable data-related or methodological
limitations. As a result of this review, we excluded 21 studies due to
methodological limitations and retained 11 for our analyses (see
appendix II for a list of the 11 studies). Seven of the 11 remaining
studies included information on graduation rates, 1 study focused on
employment outcomes, 4 studies included information on total student
loan indebtedness, and 2 studies included information on student loan
default rates at schools. All of these studies included comparative
analyses of student outcomes at for-profit and nonprofit and/or public
schools, while controlling for at least one student characteristic,
and all were determined to be methodologically sound.[Footnote 17]
Licensing Exam Pass Rate Analysis:
To identify potential occupations for our analyses, we reviewed
information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' 2010-2011
Occupational Outlook Handbook and Education data on the largest fields
of study by enrollment. We also spoke with and reviewed information
from representatives at national credentialing organizations, state
licensing bodies, testing companies, and other entities involved in
occupational licensing, to learn more about which occupations require
practitioners to pass an exam, which states require practitioners to
pass specific exams, and the availability of exam data. To identify
educational programs of study associated with our potential list of
occupations, we reviewed Education's Classification of Instructional
Programs (CIP) codes. We initially considered more than 20
occupational fields.[Footnote 18]
We restricted our analysis of licensing exam data to occupations that
met the following criteria.[Footnote 19]
* Practitioners are generally required to pass a licensing exam in
order to work.[Footnote 20]
* Obtaining a license does not require significant work experience
before taking the licensing exam.[Footnote 21]
* Passing a licensing exam is generally not a requirement to graduate
from a program of study.[Footnote 22]
To ensure that we selected programs with sufficient numbers of
graduates across sectors, we used CIP data to determine the number of
students completing each program in each sector in school year 2009.
[Footnote 23] As we identified potential occupations and programs and
spoke with representatives from state and other licensing entities, we
further refined our list by eliminating occupations where available
data would not allow us to both (1) reliably identify the type of
school at which test takers completed an educational program and (2)
reliably distinguish first time test takers from repeat test takers.
[Footnote 24]
Licensing exams in the following 10 occupations met our criteria and
the associated exam entities agreed to provide us with data:
Registered Nurse (RN), Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Radiographer,
Emergency Medical Technician (EMT), Paramedic, Surgical Technologist,
Massage Therapist, Lawyer, Cosmetologist, and Funeral Director. We
generally collected licensing exam pass rate data for first-time test
takers for calendar years 2008, 2009, and 2010 to allow us to identify
pass rate patterns and account for any data anomalies that might occur
in a single year. To prevent the identification of individual schools
or students, we did not report specific pass rates if there were less
than five programs in a sector over the 2008-2010 time period, unless
the data were publicly available.
Data Sources for Pass Rates on Licensing Exams Included in Our
Analyses:
When possible, we selected licensing exams offered by national
organizations to maximize the number of states in our
analysis.[Footnote 25] To ensure that national data included in our
analyses were consistent and equivalent, we restricted our analysis to
national licensing exams where a single exam with a nationally set
pass score was used. We included in our analyses only states that
required passing the licensing exam to practice in the
occupation.[Footnote 26] We obtained pass rate data for a national
exam for seven occupations--RN, LPN, radiographer, EMT, paramedic,
surgical technologist, and funeral director.
RN and LPN. We analyzed licensing exam data from the National Council
of State Boards of Nursing for first-time exam takers from LPN
programs, associate's degree RN programs, and bachelor's degree RN
programs.[Footnote 27] For each of these degrees, we collected data on
less than 2-year programs, 2-year programs, and 4-year programs. All
states require RNs and LPNs to pass these exams in order to practice.
[Footnote 28]
Radiographer. We collected licensing exam data from the American
Registry of Radiologic Technologists for its radiography technologist
exam. We obtained data for 34 states that require radiographers to
pass this exam in order to practice in the state.
EMT and Paramedic. We collected licensing exam data from the National
Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians for its basic EMT and
paramedic exams. We obtained data for 32 states that required EMTs to
pass this basic EMT exam and for 38 states that require paramedics to
pass this paramedic exam in order to practice in the state.
Surgical Technologist. We collected licensing exam data from the
National Board of Surgical Technology and Surgical Assisting for its
surgical technologist exam.[Footnote 29] While no state requires
surgical technologists to be licensed, two states do require most
surgical technologists to pass this exam in order to practice in the
state. We obtained data for these two states.
Funeral Director. We collected licensing exam data from the
International Conference of Funeral Service Examining Boards, Inc. for
its National Board Examination. These data were for graduates of the
56 American Board of Funeral Service Education (ABFSE) accredited
schools, which are located in 32 states. While not all states require
passing this exam to practice as a funeral director, all students in
ABFSE-accredited programs are required to take the exam in order to
graduate.[Footnote 30] Therefore, we determined that this exam allowed
for a reasonable comparison of program quality across sectors. The
exam consists of two sections--Arts and Sciences--which may be taken
together or at different times. We report pass rates for each section
separately because the International Conference of Funeral Service
Examining Boards does not calculate a combined pass rate. Seven of the
schools that ABFSE accredits offer bachelor's degree programs in
addition to or instead of associate's degree programs; however, the
International Conference of Funeral Service Examining Boards cannot
distinguish between test takers from associate's degree and bachelor
degree programs. In order to ensure a fair comparison across sectors,
we collected and analyzed the data both including and excluding
schools that offer a bachelor's degree program. The findings were
generally similar for both analyses with respect to the relationship
between test takers from for-profit schools and those from nonprofit
and public schools.[Footnote 31] There were only four for-profit
schools included in our analysis; however, because school pass rate
data are available publicly, we made an exception to our rule of not
reporting on sectors with less than five programs, which is meant to
protect the identity of individual schools.
For the three remaining occupations, we collected data from selected
states for state and/or multiple national exams accepted for licensing
purposes.[Footnote 32] For each occupation, we used Education's CIP
data to identify the four states in which the numbers of graduates and
the distribution of graduates across sectors provided the best chance
to detect any statistically significant differences that might exist
between sectors. However, in some cases, we were unable to obtain data
from one of the top four states, so we collected data from the state
that was the next most likely to allow us detect differences across
sectors.[Footnote 33] We generally included test takers from schools
that were considered "in-state" by the states in our analysis. Results
for individual states are not generalizable to other states and it is
possible that sector comparisons in other states would show different
results or would differ as to whether the results were statistically
significant.
Massage Therapist. We collected massage therapy licensing exam pass
rate data for schools in Florida, New York, North Carolina, and Ohio.
[Footnote 34] New York and Ohio use their own state exams. During the
time period for which we collected data, Florida and North Carolina
both accepted passage of exams from either of two different testing
entities and we report pass rates separately for the separate exams.
[Footnote 35] We do not report specific pass rates for nonprofit
massage therapist programs because there were fewer than five such
programs in New York and Ohio, and none in Florida or North Carolina
over the 2008-2010 time period.
Bar Exam for Lawyers. We collected publicly available bar exam pass
rate data from California, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, but
eliminated South Carolina because first-time and repeat test takers
could not be separately identified.[Footnote 36] There were fewer than
five schools in several sectors in these states; however, because
school pass rate data are publicly available, we made an exception to
our rule of not reporting on sectors with less than five programs,
which is meant to protect the identity of individual schools.
Cosmetologist. We collected cosmetology licensing exam pass rate data
from California, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas.[Footnote 37] To
obtain a license in these states, individuals must pass both a written
and a practical portion of the exam. Only test takers who passed both
the written and practical portions of the exam on their first attempt
are included in the percent of first-time test takers who passed the
exam. In California, North Carolina, and Texas, candidates can apply
for a general cosmetology license, which allows them to perform a wide
range of cosmetology-related activities, or a more specific license,
such as a manicure or esthetician license, which have their own
licensing exams.[Footnote 38] In Florida, only one cosmetology
licensing exam was offered.[Footnote 39] In the states that offer
multiple exams, we collected data on each exam, but only reported pass
rates on the largest exam by test taker volume.[Footnote 40] We did
not report specific pass rates for nonprofit cosmetology programs
because California and North Carolina did not have any nonprofit
cosmetologist programs and Florida and Texas each had less than five
nonprofit cosmetologist programs over the 2008-2010 time period.
We assessed the reliability of licensing exam data for each exam in
our analysis by interviewing representatives at each entity from which
we collected data and reviewing documentation related to the data
systems and the collection, storage, and processing of data, when
available. We determined that all data included in our report are
sufficiently reliable for the purpose of comparing pass rates across
sectors.
Data Analysis:
For each occupation, licensing exam data were collected at either the
program level or individual test taker level. Entities providing
program level data identified first-time and repeat test takers for
us.[Footnote 41] In some cases, the entity providing the data did not
want to provide data in a way that would allow us to identify a
specific school's pass rate. In such cases, we sent the entity the
list of schools with their sector identified, and the entity replaced
the school name with a generic, sector-specific identifier such as
"public school 1," "public school 2," etc. As a result, further
analysis with respect to individual school characteristics was not
possible. For test taker level data, we identified the first time an
individual took an exam using the exam dates provided, and compiled
school level records based on the school name or unique identifier
associated with each school.
We determined the sector of each school using information from
Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)
database.[Footnote 42] This allowed us to focus on schools that
participate in federal student aid programs. However, it is possible
that we were unable to match some schools to a sector because the name
provided did not match closely enough to the school name listed in
IPEDS. Additionally, IPEDS contains a small number of schools that do
not participate in federal student aid programs. It is possible that a
small number of nonparticipating schools are captured in our analysis
if they offer programs related to the occupations for which we
collected licensing data.
After we grouped the schools by sector for each licensing exam, we
used SAS software to calculate licensing exam pass rates and mean
school pass rates for first-time test takers for each exam for each
sector.[Footnote 43] We conducted appropriate tests to assess the
statistical significance of differences in student pass rates and mean
school pass rates across sectors (see appendix III for overall sector
and mean school pass rate data and school pass rate distribution
data). [Footnote 44] We presented overall sector pass rates rather
than mean school pass rates in our briefing to avoid having schools
with a small number of test takers disproportionately influence sector
comparisons. In addition, using the student (rather than the school)
as the unit of analysis resulted in larger comparison groups, which
increased the likelihood of detecting any statistically significant
differences that might exist between sectors. Generally, there were
not substantial differences between the overall sector pass rates and
the mean school pass rates.[Footnote 45] In some cases, sector
differences in student pass rates were statistically significant, but
differences in the mean school pass rates were not. This may be due to
the fact that analyses of mean school pass rates are based on fewer
observations than analyses of overall sector pass rates.
Limitations of the Analysis:
There are some limitations related to using licensing exam pass rates
as an indicator of school quality. First, although experts and higher
education association officials told us that licensing exam pass rates
are one reasonable measure of school quality, relatively few
postsecondary school graduates take licensing exams because many
occupations do not require a license or certification. Therefore, this
analysis is limited to specific programs for which graduates require
licensure and does not provide information on the quality of other
types of postsecondary programs. In addition, reliable data were not
available to estimate the number of students who begin programs likely
to lead to specific occupations requiring a license; as a result, we
could not compare the number of students who begin a program to those
who complete the program or to those who take the relevant licensing
exam. Therefore, a school could have a high licensing exam pass rate,
but could also have a high drop-out rate if the students least likely
to pass the exam did not complete the program. Additionally, a school
could have a high exam pass rate if those graduates least likely to
pass the exam decided not to take it.
Although student characteristics, such as race and income, have
generally been found to be correlated with student outcomes, data were
generally not available on the characteristics of licensing exam test
takers. As a result, controlling for these factors in our analysis was
not possible. Exam pass rates may be affected by the extent to which
schools in one sector serve a higher proportion of nontraditional or
disadvantaged students. Similarly, schools that attract better
prepared students may have higher licensing exam pass rates, which may
not be a direct function of the quality of the education provided.
Although focusing on outcomes for graduates can mitigate the impact of
student characteristics, it may not completely eliminate the effect of
these characteristics on test results.
Lastly, the number of schools and students for some of the exams in
our analysis was quite small. For example, there was only one for-
profit law school in Florida and only one for-profit, two nonprofit,
and two public law schools in Georgia. Similarly, there were only 5
for-profit paramedic programs compared to 368 public paramedic
programs (see appendix III for data on the number of programs and test
takers for each exam).
[End of section]
Appendix II: List of Studies and Ongoing Research Included in Our
Literature Review:
We identified 11 studies that included original research on
postsecondary student outcomes, controlled for at least one student
characteristic, compared student outcomes at for-profit schools and
schools from at least one other sector (nonprofit or public), and met
our standards for methodological soundness. Table 1 identifies these
studies, the outcomes of interest from each study, the data source,
and the time period covered by the study data.
Table 1: Studies Included in GAO's Report, By Student Outcomes:
Student outcome of interest: Graduation rates, employment outcomes,
student indebtedness, And school default rates;
Study information: Deming, D., Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence F. Katz,
The For-Profit Postsecondary School Sector: Nimble Critters or Agile
Predators? Draft Paper Harvard University and the National Bureau of
Economic Research. (Mass., July 2011);
Data source and time period covered: BPS, 2004-2009; IPEDS, 2005-2008;
NSLDS, 2005-2008.
Student outcome of interest: Graduation rates;
Study information: Skomsvold, P., Alexandria Walton Radford, and Lutz
Berkner of MPR Associates, Inc., Web Tables: Six-Year Attainment,
Persistence, Transfer, Retention, and Withdrawal Rates of Students Who
Began Postsecondary Education in 2003-04. ED-02-CO-0011, U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
(Washington, D.C.: July 2011);
Data source and time period covered: BPS, 2004-2009.
Student outcome of interest: Graduation rates;
Study information: Knapp, L.G., J.E. Kelly-Reid, and S.A. Ginder.
Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2009;
Graduation Rates, 2003 & 2006 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics,
Fiscal Year 2009. (NCES 2011-230), U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics (Washington, D.C.: February
2011);
Data source and time period covered: IPEDS, spring 2010.
Student outcome of interest: Graduation rates;
Study information: Knapp, L.G., J.E. Kelly-Reid, and S.A. Ginder,
Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2008;
Graduation Rates, 2002 & 2005 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics,
Fiscal Year 2008. (NCES 2010-152), U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics (Washington, D.C.: April
2010);
Data source and time period covered: IPEDS, spring 2009.
Student outcome of interest: Graduation rates;
Study information: Knapp, L.G., J.E. Kelly-Reid, and S.A. Ginder,
Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2007;
Graduation Rates, 2001 & 2004 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics,
Fiscal Year 2007. (NCES 2009-155), U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics (Washington, D.C.: March
2009);
Data source and time period covered: IPEDS, spring 2008.
Student outcome of interest: Graduation rates;
Study information: Knapp, L.G., J.E. Kelly-Reid, S.A.Ginder, and E.
Miller, Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2006;
Graduation Rates, 2000 & 2003 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics,
Fiscal Year 2006. (NCES 2008-173), U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics (Washington D.C.: June 2008);
Data source and time period covered: IPEDS, spring 2007.
Student outcome of interest: Graduation rates;
Study information: Knapp, L.G., J.E. Kelly-Reid, R.W. Whitmore, and E.
Miller, Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2005;
Graduation Rates, 1999 and 2002 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics,
Fiscal Year 2005. (NCES 2007-154), U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics (Washington D.C.: April 2007);
Data source and time period covered: IPEDS, spring 2006.
Student outcome of interest: Student indebtedness;
Study information: Hinze-Pifer, R. and R. Fry, "The Rise of College
Student Borrowing, A Social and Demographic Trends Report," Pew
Research Center (November 2010);
Data source and time period covered: NPSAS, 2007-2008.
Student outcome of interest: Student indebtedness;
Study information: Baum, S. and Patricia Steele, "Who Borrows the
Most? Bachelor's Degree Recipients with High Levels of Student Debt,"
College Board Advocacy & Policy Center, Trends in Higher Education
Series (2010);
Data source and time period covered: NPSAS, 2007-2008.
Student outcome of interest: Student indebtedness;
Study information: "Trends in Student Aid 2010," College Board
Advocacy & Policy Center Trends in Higher Education Series (2010);
Data source and time period covered: NPSAS, 2007-2008.
Student outcome of interest: Default rate;
Study information: Guryan, J., M. Thompson, and Charles River
Associates, Report on Gainful Employment, Prepared for Harris N.
Miller, Career College Association (Washington, D.C.: April 2010);
Data source and time period covered: BPS, 1996-2001.
Source: GAO.
Note: IPEDS refers to Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System. BPS refers to Education's Beginning Postsecondary
Students Longitudinal Study. NPSAS refers to Education's National
Postsecondary Student Aid Survey. NSLDS refers to Education's National
Student Loan Data System.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing Exam Pass Rates:
The following tables contain more detailed data from our analyses of
licensing exam pass rates. For each exam, data are presented in two
tables and one figure. The first table contains the number of programs
and number of test takers by sector. The second table contains the
overall student pass rate and the mean program pass rate by sector. To
protect the confidentiality of individual schools and students, we did
not report pass rates in cases in which there were less than five
programs (unless the data were already publicly available). The figure
presents the distribution of program pass rates by sector over the
2008-2010 time period.
Table 2: RN (Bachelor's Degrees): Number of Programs and First Time
Test Takers, by Sector:
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Programs: 0;
2008: Test takers: 0;
2009: Programs: 0;
2009: Test takers: 0;
2010: Programs: 0;
2010: Test takers: 0;
2008-2010: Programs: 0;
2008-2010: Test takers: 0.
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: 2 years;
2008: Programs: 0;
2008: Test takers: 0;
2009: Programs: 0;
2009: Test takers: 0;
2010: Programs: 0;
2010: Test takers: 0;
2008-2010: Programs: 0;
2008-2010: Test takers: 0.
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: 4 years;
2008: Programs: 11;
2008: Test takers: 518;
2009: Programs: 14;
2009: Test takers: 825;
2010: Programs: 20;
2010: Test takers: 1,083;
2008-2010: Programs: 21;
2008-2010: Test takers: 2,426.
Sector: For-profit; Total;
2008: Programs: 11;
2008: Test takers: 518;
2009: Programs: 14;
2009: Test takers: 825;
2010: Programs: 20;
2010: Test takers: 1,083;
2008-2010: Programs: 21;
2008-2010: Test takers: 2,426.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Programs: 0;
2008: Test takers: 0;
2009: Programs: 0;
2009: Test takers: 0;
2010: Programs: 0;
2010: Test takers: 0;
2008-2010: Programs: 0;
2008-2010: Test takers: 0.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Program length: 2 years;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 111;
2009: Programs: 1;
2009: Test takers: 112;
2010: Programs: 2;
2010: Test takers: 131;
2008-2010: Programs: 2;
2008-2010: Test takers: 354.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Program length: 4 years;
2008: Programs: 300;
2008: Test takers: 18,690;
2009: Programs: 316;
2009: Test takers: 19,313;
2010: Programs: 322;
2010: Test takers: 20,354;
2008-2010: Programs: 328;
2008-2010: Test takers: 58,357.
Sector: Nonprofit; Total;
2008: Programs: 301;
2008: Test takers: 18,801;
2009: Programs: 317;
2009: Test takers: 19,425;
2010: Programs: 324;
2010: Test takers: 20,485;
2008-2010: Programs: 330;
2008-2010: Test takers: 58,711.
Sector: Public;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 232;
2009: Programs: 1;
2009: Test takers: 195;
2010: Programs: 1;
2010: Test takers: 200;
2008-2010: Programs: 1;
2008-2010: Test takers: 627.
Sector: Public;
Program length: 2 years;
2008: Programs: 0;
2008: Test takers: 0;
2009: Programs: 0;
2009: Test takers: 0;
2010: Programs: 0;
2010: Test takers: 0;
2008-2010: Programs: 0;
2008-2010: Test takers: 0.
Sector: Public;
Program length: 4 years;
2008: Programs: 297;
2008: Test takers: 27,994;
2009: Programs: 302;
2009: Test takers: 29,163;
2010: Programs: 310;
2010: Test takers: 30,780;
2008-2010: Programs: 315;
2008-2010: Test takers: 87,937.
Sector: Public; Total;
2008: Programs: 298;
2008: Test takers: 28,226;
2009: Programs: 303;
2009: Test takers: 29,358;
2010: Programs: 311;
2010: Test takers: 30,980;
2008-2010: Programs: 316;
2008-2010: Test takers: 88,564.
Source: GAO analysis of National Council of State Boards of Nursing
data.
[End of table]
Table 3: RN (Bachelor's Degree): Student Pass Rate and Mean Program
Pass Rate, by Sector:
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: n/a;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2009: Student pass rate: n/a;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2010: Student pass rate: n/a;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/a;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/a.
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: n/a;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2009: Student pass rate: n/a;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2010: Student pass rate: n/a;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/a;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/a.
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: 4 years;
2008: Student pass rate: 83.6[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 83.1;
2009: Student pass rate: 84.8[B,] c;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 77.9;
2010: Student pass rate: 84.8[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 86;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 84.5[B, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 81.3.
Sector: For-profit; Total;
2008: Student pass rate: 83.6%[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 83.1%;
2009: Student pass rate: 84.8%[B, C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 77.9%;
2010: Student pass rate: 84.8%[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 86%;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 84.5%[B, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 81.3%.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: n/a;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2009: Student pass rate: n/a;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2010: Student pass rate: n/a;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/a;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/a.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Program length: 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Student pass rate: Total: 85[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: Total: 83.7[C];
2009: Student pass rate: Total: 87.8 [A, C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: Total: 86.1[C];
2010: Student pass rate: Total: 87.2[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: Total: 85.6[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: Total: 86.7[A, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: Total: 84.4[C].
Sector: Nonprofit; Total;
2008: Student pass rate: 85%[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 83.7%[C];
2009: Student pass rate: 87.9%[A, C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 86.1%[C];
2010: Student pass rate: 87.2%[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 85.7%[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 86.7%[A, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 84.5%[C].
Sector: Public;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
Sector: Public;
Program length: 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: n/a;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2009: Student pass rate: n/a;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2010: Student pass rate: n/a;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/a;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/a.
Sector: Public;
Program length: Total: 4 years;
2008: Student pass rate: Total: 88.9[A, B];
2008: Mean program pass rate: Total: 87.9[B];
2009: Student pass rate: Total: 90.5[A, B];
2009: Mean program pass rate: Total: 90.5[B];
2010: Student pass rate: Total: 89.7[A, B];
2010: Mean program pass rate: Total: 88.4[B];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: Total: 89.7[A, B];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: Total: 88.9[B].
Sector: Public; Total;
2008: Student pass rate: 88.9%[A, B];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 87.9%[B];
2009: Student pass rate: 90.5%[A, B];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 90.5%[B];
2010: Student pass rate: 89.7%[A, B];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 88.4%[B];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 89.7%[A, B];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 88.9%[B].
Source: GAO analysis of National Council of State Boards of Nursing
data.
Notes: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-
time test takers passing the exam was divided by the total number of
first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The
mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all
programs in each sector and was calculated by summing the individual
program pass rates and dividing by the total number of programs for
each sector, for each year and overall.
N/R indicates that we are not reporting pass rates because there were
less than five programs.
N/A indicates not applicable because there were no programs or test
takers.
[A] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit
sector pass rates.
[B] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit
sector pass rate.
[C] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector
pass rate.
[End of table]
Table 4: RN (Associate's Degree): Number of Programs and First Time
Test Takers, by Sector:
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Programs: 2;
2008: Test takers: 117;
2009: Programs: 3;
2009: Test takers: 223;
2010: Programs: 5;
2010: Test takers: 212;
2008-2010: Programs: 5;
2008-2010: Test takers: 552.
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: Program length: 2 years;
2008: Programs: Programs: 28;
2008: Test takers: Test takers: 1,709;
2009: Programs: Programs: 35;
2009: Test takers: Test takers: 2,283;
2010: Programs: Programs: 46;
2010: Test takers: Test takers: 3,085;
2008-2010: Programs: Programs: 47;
2008-2010: Test takers: Test takers: 7,077.
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: 4 years;
2008: Programs: 15;
2008: Test takers: 1,034;
2009: Programs: 21;
2009: Test takers: 1,304;
2010: Programs: 26;
2010: Test takers: 1,534;
2008-2010: Programs: 27;
2008-2010: Test takers: 3,872.
Sector: For-profit; Total;
2008: Programs: 45;
2008: Test takers: 2,860;
2009: Programs: 59;
2009: Test takers: 3,810;
2010: Programs: 77;
2010: Test takers: 4,831;
2008-2010: Programs: 79;
2008-2010: Test takers: 11,501.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 21;
2009: Programs: 1;
2009: Test takers: 12;
2010: Programs: 2;
2010: Test takers: 43;
2008-2010: Programs: 2;
2008-2010: Test takers: 76.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Program length: 2 years;
2008: Programs: 28;
2008: Test takers: 2,019;
2009: Programs: 28;
2009: Test takers: 2,215;
2010: Programs: 28;
2010: Test takers: 1,998;
2008-2010: Programs: 29;
2008-2010: Test takers: 6,232.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Program length: Total: 4 years;
2008: Programs: Total: 73;
2008: Test takers: Total: 6,165;
2009: Programs: Total: 78;
2009: Test takers: Total: 6,324;
2010: Programs: Total: 78;
2010: Test takers: Total: 6,298;
2008-2010: Programs: Total: 81;
2008-2010: Test takers: Total: 18,787.
Sector: Nonprofit; Total;
2008: Programs: 102;
2008: Test takers: 8,205;
2009: Programs: 107;
2009: Test takers: 8,551;
2010: Programs: 108;
2010: Test takers: 8,339;
2008-2010: Programs: 112;
2008-2010: Test takers: 25,095.
Sector: Public;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 11;
2009: Programs: 2;
2009: Test takers: 32;
2010: Programs: 2;
2010: Test takers: 55;
2008-2010: Programs: 2;
2008-2010: Test takers: 98.
Sector: Public;
Program length: 2 years;
2008: Programs: 723;
2008: Test takers: 52,076;
2009: Programs: 741;
2009: Test takers: 53,741;
2010: Programs: 758;
2010: Test takers: 55,956;
2008-2010: Programs: 768;
2008-2010: Test takers: 161,773.
Sector: Public;
Program length: Total: 4 years;
2008: Programs: Total: 119;
2008: Test takers: Total: 9,592;
2009: Programs: Total: 115;
2009: Test takers: Total: 9,578;
2010: Programs: Total: 117;
2010: Test takers: Total: 9,569;
2008-2010: Programs: Total: 124;
2008-2010: Test takers: Total: 28,739.
Sector: Public; Total;
2008: Programs: 843;
2008: Test takers: 61,679;
2009: Programs: 858;
2009: Test takers: 63,351;
2010: Programs: 877;
2010: Test takers: 65,580;
2008-2010: Programs: 894;
2008-2010: Test takers: 190,610.
Source: GAO analysis of National Council of State Boards of Nursing
data.
[End of table]
Table 5: RN (Associate's Degree): Student Pass Rate and Mean Program
Pass Rate, by Sector:
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: 78.3;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 70.9;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 84.2;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 71.3.
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: : 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: 71.4[B,] c;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 70.4[B,] c;
2009: Student pass rate: 79.7[B, C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 77.2[B,] c;
2010: Student pass rate: 78.7[B, C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 77.8[B, C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 77.3[B, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 76.2[B, C].
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: Total: 4 years;
2008: Student pass rate: Total: 78.9[B,] c;
2008: Mean program pass rate: Total: 76.5[B,] c;
2009: Student pass rate: Total: 84[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: Total: 75.5[B, C];
2010: Student pass rate: Total: 83.2[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: Total: 82.8;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: Total: 82.3[B,] c;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: Total: 78.7[C].
Sector: For-profit; Total;
2008: Student pass rate: 74.6%[B,] c;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 73%[B, C];
2009: Student pass rate: 81.8%[B,] c;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 77.2%[B, C];
2010: Student pass rate: 80.1%[B,] c;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 79%[B, C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 79.3%[B, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 76.7%[B,] c.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Program length: 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: 83.9[A,] c;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 82[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 86.6[A, C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 87.4[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 86.1[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 87.8[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 85.6[A, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 86.4[A].
Sector: Nonprofit;
Program length: Total: 4 years;
2008: Student pass rate: Total: 85.1[A];
2008: Mean program pass rate: Total: 85.6[A];
2009: Student pass rate: Total: 86;
2009: Mean program pass rate: Total: 86.1[A];
2010: Student pass rate: Total: 84.4[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: Total: 83.2;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: Total: 85.2[A, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: Total: 84.
Sector: Nonprofit; Total;
2008: Student pass rate: 84.8%[A, C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 84.7%[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 86.2%[A,] c;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 86.5%[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 84.8%[A, C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 84.3%[A, C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 85.3%[A, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 84.6%[A, C].
Sector: Public;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
Sector: Public;
Program length: 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: 87.4[A, B];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 87.1[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 88.4[A, B];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 88.4[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 87.2[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 87.3[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 87.7[A, B];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 87.1[A].
Sector: Public;
Program length: Total: 4 years;
2008: Student pass rate: Total: 85.4[A];
2008: Mean program pass rate: Total: 85.2[A];
2009: Student pass rate: Total: 87.2[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: Total: 87.8[A];
2010: Student pass rate: Total: 87[A, B];
2010: Mean program pass rate: Total: 85.7;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: Total: 86.5[A, B];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: Total: 85.9[A].
Sector: Public; Total;
2008: Student pass rate: 87.1%[A, B];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 86.8%[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 88.3%[A, B];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 88.3%[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 87.2%[A, B];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 87%[A, B];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 87.5%[A, B];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 87%[A, B].
Source: GAO analysis of National Council of State Boards of Nursing
data.
Notes: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-
time test takers passing the exam was divided by the total number of
first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The
mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all
programs in each sector and was calculated by summing the individual
program pass rates and dividing by the total number of programs for
each sector, for each year and overall.
N/R indicates that we are not reporting pass rates because there were
less than five programs.
[A] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit
sector pass rates.
[B] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit
sector pass rate.
[C] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector
pass rate.
[End of table]
Table 6: LPN: Number of Programs and First Time Test Takers, by Sector:
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Programs: 54;
2008: Test takers: 3,104;
2009: Programs: 60;
2009: Test takers: 3,495;
2010: Programs: 65;
2010: Test takers: 4,342;
2008-2010: Programs: 69;
2008-2010: Test takers: 10,941.
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: : 2 years;
2008: Programs: : 79;
2008: Test takers: : 6,770;
2009: Programs: : 89;
2009: Test takers: : 7,386;
2010: Programs: : 100;
2010: Test takers: : 8,010;
2008-2010: Programs: : 106;
2008-2010: Test takers: : 22,166.
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: Total: 4 years;
2008: Programs: Total: 29;
2008: Test takers: Total: 1,721;
2009: Programs: Total: 28;
2009: Test takers: Total: 1,647;
2010: Programs: Total: 32;
2010: Test takers: Total: 2,254;
2008-2010: Programs: Total: 34;
2008-2010: Test takers: Total: 5,622.
Sector: For-profit; Total;
Program length: [Empty];
2008: Programs: 162;
2008: Test takers: 11,595;
2009: Programs: 177;
2009: Test takers: 12,528;
2010: Programs: 197;
2010: Test takers: 14,606;
2008-2010: Programs: 209;
2008-2010: Test takers: 38,729.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Programs: 19;
2008: Test takers: 1,153;
2009: Programs: 19;
2009: Test takers: 1,034;
2010: Programs: 20;
2010: Test takers: 958;
2008-2010: Programs: 20;
2008-2010: Test takers: 3,145.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Program length: 2 years;
2008: Programs: 12;
2008: Test takers: 537;
2009: Programs: 12;
2009: Test takers: 583;
2010: Programs: 11;
2010: Test takers: 576;
2008-2010: Programs: 12;
2008-2010: Test takers: 1,696.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Program length: Total: 4 years;
2008: Programs: Total: 17;
2008: Test takers: Total: 596;
2009: Programs: Total: 20;
2009: Test takers: Total: 690;
2010: Programs: Total: 19;
2010: Test takers: Total: 640;
2008-2010: Programs: Total: 20;
2008-2010: Test takers: Total: 1,926.
Sector: Nonprofit; Total;
2008: Programs: 48;
2008: Test takers: 2,286;
2009: Programs: 51;
2009: Test takers: 2,307;
2010: Programs: 50;
2010: Test takers: 2,174;
2008-2010: Programs: 52;
2008-2010: Test takers: 6,767.
Sector: Public;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Programs: 230;
2008: Test takers: 7,881;
2009: Programs: 225;
2009: Test takers: 7,704;
2010: Programs: 235;
2010: Test takers: 8,320;
2008-2010: Programs: 245;
2008-2010: Test takers: 23,905.
Sector: Public;
Program length: 2 years;
2008: Programs: 723;
2008: Test takers: 26,662;
2009: Programs: 719;
2009: Test takers: 26,850;
2010: Programs: 724;
2010: Test takers: 26,601;
2008-2010: Programs: 759;
2008-2010: Test takers: 80,113.
Sector: Public;
Program length: Total: 4 years;
2008: Programs: Total: 53;
2008: Test takers: Total: 1,922;
2009: Programs: Total: 54;
2009: Test takers: Total: 1,944;
2010: Programs: Total: 55;
2010: Test takers: Total: 2,000;
2008-2010: Programs: Total: 58;
2008-2010: Test takers: Total: 5,866.
Sector: Public; Total;
2008: Programs: 1,006;
2008: Test takers: 36,465;
2009: Programs: 998;
2009: Test takers: 36,498;
2010: Programs: 1,014;
2010: Test takers: 36,921;
2008-2010: Programs: 1,062;
2008-2010: Test takers: 109,884.
Source: GAO analysis of National Council of State Boards of Nursing
data.
[End of table]
Table 7: LPN: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rate, by Sector:
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: 77.3[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 73.9[B, C];
2009: Student pass rate: 77.2[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 76[C];
2010: Student pass rate: 80.3[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 78.6[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 78.4[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 76.3[C].
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: 80[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 76.2[C];
2009: Student pass rate: 81[B,] c;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 78.8[C];
2010: Student pass rate: 84.3[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 83.1[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 81.9[B, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 79.6[C].
Sector: For-profit;
Program length: 4 years;
2008: Student pass rate: 80.6[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 86.1;
2009: Student pass rate: 80.9[B,] c;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 84.1;
2010: Student pass rate: 84.1[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 86.8[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 82.1[B,] c;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 86.1[C].
Sector: For-profit; Total;
2008: Student pass rate: 79.3%[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 77.2%[B, C];
2009: Student pass rate: 79.9%[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 78.7%[C];
2010: Student pass rate: 83.1%[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 82.2%[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 80.9%[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 79.6%[C].
Sector: Nonprofit;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: 78.6[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 84.1[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 79.3[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 81.4;
2010: Student pass rate: 80[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 80.7;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 79.2[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 81.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Program length: 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: 82.3[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 84.9;
2009: Student pass rate: 74.4[A, C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 80.5[C];
2010: Student pass rate: 80.9[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 86.7;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 79.1[A, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 84.1.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Program length: 4 years;
2008: Student pass rate: 84.7[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 83;
2009: Student pass rate: 87.7[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 86.4;
2010: Student pass rate: 84.1[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 82.1[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 85.6[A, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 81.5[C].
Sector: Nonprofit; Total;
2008: Student pass rate: 81.1%[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 83.9%[A,] c;
2009: Student pass rate: 80.6%[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 83.1%[C];
2010: Student pass rate: 81.4%[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 82.5%[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 81%[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 81.9%[C].
Sector: Public;
Program length: Less than 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: 86.9[A, B];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 87.3[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 86.3[A, B];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 86.4[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 88.8[A, B];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 89[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 87.4[A, B];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 87.4[A].
Sector: Public;
Program length: 2 years;
2008: Student pass rate: 91.5[A, B];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 91.6[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 92.1[A, B];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 91.8[A, B];
2010: Student pass rate: 93.1[A, B];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 92.8[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 92.2[A, B];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 91.8[A].
Sector: Public;
Program length: 4 years;
2008: Student pass rate: 89.4[A, B];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 89.3;
2009: Student pass rate: 89.9[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 89.2;
2010: Student pass rate: 91.8[A, B];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 91.6[A, B];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 90.4[A, B];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 90.7[A, B].
Sector: Public; Total;
2008: Student pass rate: 90.4%[A, B];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 90.5%[A, B];
2009: Student pass rate: 90.7%[A, B];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 90.5%[A, B];
2010: Student pass rate: 92.1%[A, B];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 91.9%[A, B];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 91.1%[A, B];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 90.7%[A, B].
Source: GAO analysis of National Council of State Boards of Nursing
data.
Note: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-
time test takers passing the exam was divided by the total number of
first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The
mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all
programs in each sector and was calculated by summing the individual
program pass rates and dividing by the total number of programs for
each sector, for each year and overall.
[A] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit
sector pass rates.
[B] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit
sector pass rate.
[C] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector
pass rate.
[End of table]
Figure 1: Nursing: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: 9 horizontal bar graphs]
Public:
Total LPN (1,062 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 4;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 11;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 56;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 991.
Total RN - Associates (894 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 4;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 1;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 59;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 830.
Total RN - Bachelors (316 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 2;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 10;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 304.
Nonprofit:
Total LPN (52 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 3;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 11;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 38.
Total RN - Associates (112 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 2;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 15;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 95.
Total RN - Bachelors (330 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 4;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 2;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 41;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 283.
For-profit:
Total LPN (209 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 5;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 12;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 47;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 145.
Total RN - Associates (79 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 3;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 27;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 49.
Total RN - Bachelors (21 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 1;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 3;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 17.
Source: GAO analysis of National Council of State Boards of Nursing
data.
[End of figure]
Table 8: Radiography: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector:
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 32;
2008: Test takers: 1,265;
2009: Programs: 35;
2009: Test takers: 1,219;
2010: Programs: 40;
2010: Test takers: 1,193;
2008-2010: Programs: 40;
2008-2010: Test takers: 3,677.
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Programs: 89;
2008: Test takers: 1,270;
2009: Programs: 89;
2009: Test takers: 1,283;
2010: Programs: 89;
2010: Test takers: 1,277;
2008-2010: Programs: 89;
2008-2010: Test takers: 3,830.
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 278;
2008: Test takers: 6,125;
2009: Programs: 285;
2009: Test takers: 5,917;
2010: Programs: 290;
2010: Test takers: 5,861;
2008-2010: Programs: 291;
2008-2010: Test takers: 17,903.
Source: GAO analysis of American Registry of Radiologic Technologists
data.
[End of table]
Table 9: Radiography: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates,
by Sector:
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 81.3%[B, C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 82.9%[B, C];
2009: Student pass rate: 84.7%[B, C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 83.2%[B, C];
2010: Student pass rate: 84.8%[B, C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 84.1%[B, C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 83.5%[B, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 82.3%[B, C].
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Student pass rate: 92[A, C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 93.6[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 93.3[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 93.4[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 95.7[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 96.3[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 93.7[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 94.2[A].
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 94.5[A, B];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 94.6[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 94.1[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 94.1[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 94.5[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 94.6[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 94.4[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 94.2[A].
Source: GAO analysis of American Registry of Radiologic Technologists
data.
Note: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-
time test takers passing the exam was divided by the total number of
first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The
mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all
programs in each sector and was calculated by summing the individual
program pass rates and dividing by the total number of programs for
each sector, for each year and overall.
[A] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit
sector pass rates.
[B] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit
sector pass rate.
[C] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector
pass rate.
[End of table]
Figure 2: Radiography: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-
2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: 3 horizontal bar graphs]
Public (291 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 6;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 285.
Nonprofit (89 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 3;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 86.
For-profit (40 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 1;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 10;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 29.
Source: GAO analysis of American Registry of Radiologic Technologists
data.
[End of figure]
Table 10: EMT: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector:
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 10;
2008: Test takers: 756;
2009: Programs: 15;
2009: Test takers: 896;
2010: Programs: 16;
2010: Test takers: 980;
2008-2010: Programs: 18;
2008-2010: Test takers: 2,632.
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Programs: 26;
2008: Test takers: 728;
2009: Programs: 29;
2009: Test takers: 878;
2010: Programs: 27;
2010: Test takers: 1,069;
2008-2010: Programs: 30;
2008-2010: Test takers: 2,675.
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 565;
2008: Test takers: 28,230;
2009: Programs: 571;
2009: Test takers: 31,038;
2010: Programs: 575;
2010: Test takers: 33,750;
2008-2010: Programs: 615;
2008-2010: Test takers: 93,018.
Source: GAO analysis of National Registry of Emergency Medical
Technicians data.
[End of table]
Table 11: EMT: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates, by
Sector:
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 60.2%[B, C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 49.1%[B];
2009: Student pass rate: 51.2%[B, C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 49.3%[C];
2010: Student pass rate: 61%[B, C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 56.2%;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 57.4%[B, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 48.7%[B, C].
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Student pass rate: 77.3[A, C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 74[A,] c;
2009: Student pass rate: 68.3[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 65.1;
2010: Student pass rate: 68.6[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 67.3;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 70.9[A, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 70.3[A, C].
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 66.9[A, B];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 63.1[B];
2009: Student pass rate: 66.5[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 63.8[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 67.5[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 63.4;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 67[A, B];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 63.5[A, B].
Source: GAO analysis of National Registry of Emergency Medical
Technicians data.
Note: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-
time test takers passing the exam was divided by the total number of
first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The
mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all
programs in each sector and was calculated by summing the individual
program pass rates and dividing by the total number of programs for
each sector, for each year and overall.
[A] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit
sector pass rates.
[B] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit
sector pass rate.
[C] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector
pass rate.
[End of table]
Figure 3: EMT Basic: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: 3 horizontal bar graphs]
Public (615 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 15;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 87;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 371;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 142.
Nonprofit (30 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 1;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 3;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 12;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 14.
For-profit (18 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 2;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 5;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 11;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of National Registry of Emergency Medical
Technicians data.
[End of figure]
Table 12: Paramedic: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector:
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 5;
2008: Test takers: 43;
2009: Programs: 5;
2009: Test takers: 74;
2010: Programs: 5;
2010: Test takers: 75;
2008-2010: Programs: 5;
2008-2010: Test takers: 192.
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Programs: 19;
2008: Test takers: 423;
2009: Programs: 18;
2009: Test takers: 406;
2010: Programs: 19;
2010: Test takers: 419;
2008-2010: Programs: 22;
2008-2010: Test takers: 1,248.
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 347;
2008: Test takers: 5,474;
2009: Programs: 348;
2009: Test takers: 5,621;
2010: Programs: 349;
2010: Test takers: 6,170;
2008-2010: Programs: 383;
2008-2010: Test takers: 17,265.
Source: GAO analysis of National Registry of Emergency Medical
Technicians data.
[End of table]
Table 13: Paramedic: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates, by
Sector:
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 41.9%[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 46.9%;
2009: Student pass rate: 44.6%[B, C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 38.6%[C];
2010: Student pass rate: 42.7%[B, C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 42.7%[B, C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 43.2%[B, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 43.7%[C].
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Student pass rate: 60.5;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 51.7;
2009: Student pass rate: 63.3[A, C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 62.9;
2010: Student pass rate: 64.9[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 64.9[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 62.9[A, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 59.5.
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 65.3[A];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 60.3;
2009: Student pass rate: 70.5[A, B];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 66.5[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 70[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 66.5[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 68.7[A, B];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 63.8[A].
Source: GAO analysis of National Registry of Emergency Medical
Technicians data.
Note: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-
time test takers passing the exam was divided by the total number of
first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The
mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all
programs in each sector and was calculated by summing the individual
program pass rates and dividing by the total number of programs for
each sector, for each year and overall.
[A] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit
sector pass rates.
[B] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit
sector pass rate.
[C] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector
pass rate.
[End of table]
Figure 4: Paramedic: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: 3 horizontal bar graphs]
Public (383 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 22;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 79;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 156;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 126.
Nonprofit (22 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 6;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 11;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 5.
For-profit (5 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 1;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 3;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 1;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of National Registry of Emergency Medical
Technicians data.
[End of figure]
Table 14: Surgical Technologist: Number of Programs and Test Takers,
by Sector:
Sector: For-profit;
2010: Programs: 8;
2010: Test takers: 225.
Sector: Nonprofit;
2010: Programs: 1;
2010: Test takers: 13.
Sector: Public;
2010: Programs: 20;
2010: Test takers: 393.
Source: GAO analysis of National Board of Surgical Technology and
Surgical Assisting data for Indiana and South Carolina.
Note: One of the two states included in our analysis changed its
regulations in 2009, so we present data from 2010 only.
[End of table]
Table 15: Surgical Technologist: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program
Pass Rates, by Sector:
For-profit;
2010: Student pass rate: 29.3%[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 29.3%[C].
Nonprofit;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
Public;
2010: Student pass rate: 72[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 72[A].
Source: GAO analysis of National Board of Surgical Technology and
Surgical Assisting data for Indiana and South Carolina.
Notes: One of the two states included in our analysis changed its
regulations in 2009, so we present data from 2010 only.
To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-time
test takers passing the exam was divided by the total number of first-
time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The mean
program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all programs in
each sector and was calculated by summing the individual program pass
rates and dividing by the total number of programs for each sector,
for each year and overall.
We do not report specific pass rates for nonprofit surgical technician
programs because there were fewer than five such programs in our
sample. However, the pass rates for students from the nonprofit sector
was statistically significantly higher than that of students in the
for-profit and public sectors.
N/R indicates that we are not reporting pass rates because there were
less than five programs.
[A] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit
sector pass rates.
[C] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector
pass rate.
[End of table]
Figure 5: Surgical Technologists: Number of Programs by Pass Rate
Range, 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 horizontal bar graphs]
Public (20 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 3;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 8;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 9.
For-profit (8 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 2;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 6;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 0;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of National Board of Surgical Technology and
Surgical Assisting data from Indiana and South Carolina.
[End of figure]
Table 16: Massage Therapist: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by
Sector:
State: Florida;
Exam: Combined NCETM/NCETMB;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 78;
2008: Test takers: 2,580;
2009: Programs: 79;
2009: Test takers: 2,423;
2010: Programs: 64;
2010: Test takers: 974;
2008-2010: Programs: 90;
2008-2010: Test takers: 5,977.
State: Florida;
Exam: Combined NCETM/NCETMB;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 23;
2008: Test takers: 376;
2009: Programs: 21;
2009: Test takers: 336;
2010: Programs: 16;
2010: Test takers: 158;
2008-2010: Programs: 23;
2008-2010: Test takers: 870.
State: Florida;
Exam: NCETM;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 20;
2008: Test takers: 24;
2009: Programs: 22;
2009: Test takers: 59;
2010: Programs: 22;
2010: Test takers: 147;
2008-2010: Programs: 43;
2008-2010: Test takers: 230.
State: Florida;
Exam: NCETM;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 1;
2009: Programs: 2;
2009: Test takers: 2;
2010: Programs: 4;
2010: Test takers: 11;
2008-2010: Programs: 7;
2008-2010: Test takers: 14.
State: Florida;
Exam: NCETMB;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 77;
2008: Test takers: 2,556;
2009: Programs: 79;
2009: Test takers: 2,364;
2010: Programs: 59;
2010: Test takers: 827;
2008-2010: Programs: 90;
2008-2010: Test takers: 5,747.
State: Florida;
Exam: NCETMB;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 23;
2008: Test takers: 375;
2009: Programs: 21;
2009: Test takers: 334;
2010: Programs: 16;
2010: Test takers: 147;
2008-2010: Programs: 23;
2008-2010: Test takers: 856.
State: Florida;
Exam: MBLEx;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 11;
2008: Test takers: 18;
2009: Programs: 48;
2009: Test takers: 434;
2010: Programs: 57;
2010: Test takers: 2,423;
2008-2010: Programs: 65;
2008-2010: Test takers: 2,875.
State: Florida;
Exam: MBLEx;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 1;
2009: Programs: 7;
2009: Test takers: 35;
2010: Programs: 14;
2010: Test takers: 177;
2008-2010: Programs: 15;
2008-2010: Test takers: 213.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Combined NCETM/NCETMB;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 6;
2008: Test takers: 363;
2009: Programs: 6;
2009: Test takers: 307;
2010: Programs: 5;
2010: Test takers: 72;
2008-2010: Programs: 8;
2008-2010: Test takers: 742.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Combined NCETM/NCETMB;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 13;
2008: Test takers: 122;
2009: Programs: 8;
2009: Test takers: 46;
2010: Programs: 7;
2010: Test takers: 25;
2008-2010: Programs: 15;
2008-2010: Test takers: 193.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: NCETM;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 5;
2008: Test takers: 17;
2009: Programs: 3;
2009: Test takers: 9;
2010: Programs: 2;
2010: Test takers: 3;
2008-2010: Programs: 6;
2008-2010: Test takers: 29.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: NCETM;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 8;
2008: Test takers: 31;
2009: Programs: 4;
2009: Test takers: 12;
2010: Programs: 4;
2010: Test takers: 6;
2008-2010: Programs: 10;
2008-2010: Test takers: 49.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: NCETMB;
Sector: For-Profit;
2008: Programs: 6;
2008: Test takers: 346;
2009: Programs: 6;
2009: Test takers: 298;
2010: Programs: 5;
2010: Test takers: 69;
2008-2010: Programs: 8;
2008-2010: Test takers: 713.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: NCETMB;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 12;
2008: Test takers: 91;
2009: Programs: 7;
2009: Test takers: 34;
2010: Programs: 5;
2010: Test takers: 19;
2008-2010: Programs: 14;
2008-2010: Test takers: 144.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: MBLEx;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 2;
2008: Test takers: 2;
2009: Programs: 5;
2009: Test takers: 428;
2010: Programs: 7;
2010: Test takers: 550;
2008-2010: Programs: 7;
2008-2010: Test takers: 980.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: MBLEx;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 3;
2008: Test takers: 14;
2009: Programs: 11;
2009: Test takers: 84;
2010: Programs: 12;
2010: Test takers: 99;
2008-2010: Programs: 12;
2008-2010: Test takers: 197.
State: New York;
Exam: [Empty];
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 10;
2008: Test takers: 746;
2009: Programs: 10;
2009: Test takers: 784;
2010: Programs: 10;
2010: Test takers: 670;
2008-2010: Programs: 10;
2008-2010: Test takers: 2,200.
State: New York;
Exam: [Empty];
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Programs: 2;
2008: Test takers: 190;
2009: Programs: 2;
2009: Test takers: 168;
2010: Programs: 2;
2010: Test takers: 257;
2008-2010: Programs: 2;
2008-2010: Test takers: 615.
State: New York;
Exam: [Empty];
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 6;
2008: Test takers: 101;
2009: Programs: 6;
2009: Test takers: 94;
2010: Programs: 6;
2010: Test takers: 79;
2008-2010: Programs: 6;
2008-2010: Test takers: 274.
State: Ohio;
Exam: [Empty];
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 21;
2008: Test takers: 357;
2009: Programs: 23;
2009: Test takers: 704;
2010: Programs: 21;
2010: Test takers: 660;
2008-2010: Programs: 23;
2008-2010: Test takers: 1,721.
State: Ohio;
Exam: [Empty];
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Programs: 3;
2008: Test takers: 20;
2009: Programs: 4;
2009: Test takers: 68;
2010: Programs: 3;
2010: Test takers: 51;
2008-2010: Programs: 4;
2008-2010: Test takers: 139.
State: Ohio;
Exam: [Empty];
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 9;
2008: Test takers: 62;
2009: Programs: 10;
2009: Test takers: 133;
2010: Programs: 9;
2010: Test takers: 147;
2008-2010: Programs: 12;
2008-2010: Test takers: 342.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Federation of State
Massage Therapy Boards, the National Certification Board for
Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork, the New York State Board for Massage
Therapy, and the State Medical Board of Ohio.
Note: Ohio offers its massage therapy licensing exam in June and
December. We were unable to obtain data from the June 2008 exam. Data
presented from Ohio includes the second half of 2008 and all of 2009
and 2010.
[End of table]
Table 17: Massage Therapist: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass
Rates, by Sector:
State: Florida;
Exam: Combined NCETM/NCETMB;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 56%[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 51.1%[C];
2009: Student pass rate: 48.7%[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 41.5%[C];
2010: Student pass rate: 59.4%[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 45.2%[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 53.6%[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 44.7%[C].
State: Florida;
Exam: Combined NCETM/NCETMB;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 72.1[A];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 73.6[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 61[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 56.9[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 79.7[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 83.4[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 69.2[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 68.3[A].
State: Florida;
Exam: NCETM;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 70.8;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 74.2;
2009: Student pass rate: 49.2;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 20.2;
2010: Student pass rate: 55.8;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 44.6;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 55.7;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 42.9.
State: Florida;
Exam: NCETM;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 57.1;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 51.
State: Florida;
Exam: NCETMB;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 55.8[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 49.8[C];
2009: Student pass rate: 48.7[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 42.1[C];
2010: Student pass rate: 60.1[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 46.1[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 53.5[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 45.4[C].
State: Florida;
Exam: NCETMB;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 72[A];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 73.5[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 61.4[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 57.1[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 81[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 86.4[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 69.4[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 68.5[A].
State: Florida;
Exam: MBLEx;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 94.4;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 97;
2009: Student pass rate: 71.4;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 71.1;
2010: Student pass rate: 63[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 62.4[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 64.5[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 65.3.
State: Florida;
Exam: MBLEx;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: 82.9;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 79;
2010: Student pass rate: 72.9[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 76.5[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 74.6[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 73.7.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Combined NCETM/NCETMB;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 71.3;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 76.1;
2009: Student pass rate: 57[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 59.7[C];
2010: Student pass rate: 80.6;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 65.6;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 66.3[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 76.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Combined NCETM/NCETMB;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 77.9;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 81.9;
2009: Student pass rate: 80.4[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 82.6[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 68;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 72.1;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 77.2[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 78.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: NCETM;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 52.9;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 59.1;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 51.7[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 58.3.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: NCETM;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 77.4;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 83.3;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 81.6[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 89.2.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: NCETMB;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 72.3;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 78;
2009: Student pass rate: 57[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 61;
2010: Student pass rate: 82.6;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 67.5;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 66.9;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 77.2.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: NCETMB;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 78;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 74;
2009: Student pass rate: 79.4[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 77;
2010: Student pass rate: 57.9;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 61;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 75.7;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 69.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Exam: MBLEx;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: 80.8[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 86.9;
2010: Student pass rate: 78.9[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 78.8;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 79.8[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 80.8[C].
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Exam: MBLEx;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: 96.4[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 98.3;
2010: Student pass rate: 88.9[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 89.7;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 91.9[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 92.9[A].
State: New York;
Exam: [Empty];
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 87;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 85.1;
2009: Student pass rate: 84.3;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 79.9;
2010: Student pass rate: 79.6;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 75.9[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 83.8;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 81.1.
State: New York;
Exam: [Empty];
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
State: New York;
Exam: [Empty];
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 88.1;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 88;
2009: Student pass rate: 80.9;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 78.4;
2010: Student pass rate: 88.6;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 88.8[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 85.8;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 84.6.
State: Ohio;
Exam: [Empty];
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 45.9[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 47.8;
2009: Student pass rate: 59.4[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 64.1;
2010: Student pass rate: 67[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 66.6[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 59.5[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 58.9[C].
State: Ohio;
Exam: [Empty];
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
State: Ohio;
Exam: [Empty];
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 72.6[A];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 63;
2009: Student pass rate: 81.2[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 79.7;
2010: Student pass rate: 85.7[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 84[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 81.6[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 74.7[A].
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Federation of State
Massage Therapy Boards, the National Certification Board for
Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork, the New York State Board for Massage
Therapy, and the State Medical Board of Ohio.
Notes: Ohio offers its massage therapy licensing exam in June and
December. We were unable to obtain data from the June 2008 exam. Data
presented from Ohio includes the second half of 2008 and all of 2009
and 2010.
To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-time
test takers passing the exam was divided by the total number of first-
time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The mean
program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all programs in
each sector and was calculated by summing the individual program pass
rates and dividing by the total number of programs for each sector,
for each year and overall.
We do not report specific pass rates for nonprofit massage therapist
programs because there were fewer than five such programs in Ohio,
Florida, and New York, and none in North Carolina over the 2008-2010
time period. However, the pass rates for students from the nonprofit
sector in Florida and New York were not statistically different than
that of students from the for-profit sector or public sector. The pass
rate for nonprofit students in Ohio was statistically significantly
higher than that of students from the for-profit sector.
N/R indicates that we are not reporting pass rates because there were
less than five programs.
[A] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit
sector pass rates.
[B] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit
sector pass rate.
[C] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector
pass rate.
[End of table]
Figure 6: Massage Therapist: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range,
2008-2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 horizontal bar graphs]
Public:
Florida: NCETM/NCETMB (23 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 4;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 13;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 6.
Florida: MBLEx (15 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 1;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 1;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 4;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 9.
North Carolina: NCETM/NCETMB (15 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 1;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 4;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 9.
North Carolina: MBLEx (12 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 0;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 12.
New York (6 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 1;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 5.
Ohio (12 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 3;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 2;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 7.
For-profit:
Florida: NCETM/NCETMB (90 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 18;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 38;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 24;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 10.
Florida: MBLEx (65 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 2;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 13;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 31;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 19.
North Carolina: NCETM/NCETMB (8 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 5;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 3.
North Carolina: MBLEx (7 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 2;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 5.
New York (10 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 2;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 8.
Ohio (23 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 3;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 4;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 11;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 5.
Source: GAAO analysis of data provided by the Federation of State
Massage Therapy Boards, the National Certification Board for
Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork, the New York State Board of Massage
Therapy, and the State Medical Board of Ohio.
[End of figure]
Table 18: Law: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector:
State: California;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 3;
2008: Test takers: 239;
2009: Programs: 3;
2009: Test takers: 193;
2010: Programs: 3;
2010: Test takers: 180;
2008-2010: Programs: 3;
2008-2010: Test takers: 612.
State: California;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Programs: 22;
2008: Test takers: 3,334;
2009: Programs: 22;
2009: Test takers: 3,282;
2010: Programs: 22;
2010: Test takers: 3,331;
2008-2010: Programs: 22;
2008-2010: Test takers: 9,947.
State: California;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 4;
2008: Test takers: 1,050;
2009: Programs: 4;
2009: Test takers: 1,109;
2010: Programs: 4;
2010: Test takers: 1,083;
2008-2010: Programs: 4;
2008-2010: Test takers: 3,242.
State: Florida;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 253;
2009: Programs: 1;
2009: Test takers: 289;
2010: Programs: 1;
2010: Test takers: 290;
2008-2010: Programs: 1;
2008-2010: Test takers: 832.
State: Florida;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Programs: 5;
2008: Test takers: 1,080;
2009: Programs: 5;
2009: Test takers: 1,067;
2010: Programs: 6;
2010: Test takers: 1,280;
2008-2010: Programs: 6;
2008-2010: Test takers: 3,427.
State: Florida;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 4;
2008: Test takers: 861;
2009: Programs: 4;
2009: Test takers: 835;
2010: Programs: 4;
2010: Test takers: 813;
2008-2010: Programs: 4;
2008-2010: Test takers: 2,509.
State: Georgia;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 87;
2009: Programs: 1;
2009: Test takers: 104;
2010: Programs: 1;
2010: Test takers: 135;
2008-2010: Programs: 1;
2008-2010: Test takers: 326.
State: Georgia;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Programs: 2;
2008: Test takers: 228;
2009: Programs: 2;
2009: Test takers: 226;
2010: Programs: 2;
2010: Test takers: 232;
2008-2010: Programs: 2;
2008-2010: Test takers: 686.
State: Georgia;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 2;
2008: Test takers: 335;
2009: Programs: 2;
2009: Test takers: 340;
2010: Programs: 2;
2010: Test takers: 363;
2008-2010: Programs: 2;
2008-2010: Test takers: 1,038.
Source: GAO analysis of publicly available data from the State Bar of
California, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, and the Supreme Court
of Georgia Office of Bar Admissions.
[End of table]
Table 19: Law: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates, by
Sector:
State: California;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 49.4%[B, C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 41.4%[C];
2009: Student pass rate: 41.5%[B, C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 39.3%[B, C];
2010: Student pass rate: 42.8%[B, C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 34.2%[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 44.9%[B, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 40.3%[C].
State: California;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Student pass rate: 76.7[A, C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 62.7[C];
2009: Student pass rate: 69.3[A, C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 56.2[A, C];
2010: Student pass rate: 67.6[A, C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 58.2[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 71.2[A, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 59.5[C].
State: California;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 84.1[A, B];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 84[A, B];
2009: Student pass rate: 87[A, B];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 87.6[A, B];
2010: Student pass rate: 83.3[A, B];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 83.7[A, B];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 84.8[A, B];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 85.1[A, B].
State: Florida;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 83;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 83;
2009: Student pass rate: 79.6;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 79.6;
2010: Student pass rate: 74.8;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 74.8[B, C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 79;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 79.
State: Florida;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Student pass rate: 83.5;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 82.6;
2009: Student pass rate: 79.5;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 78.1;
2010: Student pass rate: 78.6;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 75.9[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 80.4;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 77.2.
State: Florida;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 85.4;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 82.4;
2009: Student pass rate: 79;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 76;
2010: Student pass rate: 81.9;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 78.5[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 82.1;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 78.7.
State: Georgia;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 83.9[B, C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 83.9[B, C];
2009: Student pass rate: 82.7[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 82.7[B, C];
2010: Student pass rate: 59.3[B, C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 59.3[B, C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 73.3[B, C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 73.3[B, C].
State: Georgia;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Student pass rate: 96.1[A];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 96.1[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 88.5;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 88.7[A, C];
2010: Student pass rate: 92.7[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 92.7[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 92.4[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 92.5[A].
State: Georgia;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 96.4[A];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 96.5[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 93.2[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 93.2[A, B];
2010: Student pass rate: 94.8[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 94.6[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 94.8[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 94.8[A].
Source: GAO analysis of publicly available data from the State Bar of
California, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, and the Supreme Court
of Georgia Office of Bar Admissions.
Note: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-
time test takers passing the exam was divided by the total number of
first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The
mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all
programs in each sector and was calculated by summing the individual
program pass rates and dividing by the total number of programs for
each sector, for each year and overall.
[A] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit
sector pass rates.
[B] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit
sector pass rate.
[C] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector
pass rate.
[End of table]
Figure 7: Law: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: 3 horizontal bar graphs]
Public:
California (4 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 0;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 4.
Florida (4 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 1;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 3.
Georgia (2 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 0;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 2.
Nonprofit:
California (22 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 2;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 5;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 7;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 8.
Florida (6 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 2;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 4.
Georgia (2 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 0;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 2.
For-profit:
California (3 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 1;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 1;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 1;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 0.
Florida (1 program):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 0;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 1.
Georgia (1 program):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 1;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of publicly available data form the State Bar of
California, the Florida Board of Examiners, and the Supreme Court of
Georgia Office of Bar Admissions.
[End of figure]
Table 20: Cosmetology: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector:
State: California;
Exam: Barber;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 20;
2008: Test takers: 409;
2009: Programs: 22;
2009: Test takers: 362;
2010: Programs: 20;
2010: Test takers: 440;
2008-2010: Programs: 26;
2008-2010: Test takers: 1,211.
State: California;
Exam: Barber;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 3;
2008: Test takers: 29;
2009: Programs: 3;
2009: Test takers: 44;
2010: Programs: 3;
2010: Test takers: 43;
2008-2010: Programs: 3;
2008-2010: Test takers: 116.
State: California;
Exam: Cosmetology;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 159;
2008: Test takers: 7,980;
2009: Programs: 161;
2009: Test takers: 7,357;
2010: Programs: 162;
2010: Test takers: 8,069;
2008-2010: Programs: 172;
2008-2010: Test takers: 23,406.
State: California;
Exam: Cosmetology;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 28;
2008: Test takers: 1,784;
2009: Programs: 28;
2009: Test takers: 1,527;
2010: Programs: 28;
2010: Test takers: 1,617;
2008-2010: Programs: 29;
2008-2010: Test takers: 4,928.
State: California;
Exam: Manicurist;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 81;
2008: Test takers: 3,160;
2009: Programs: 70;
2009: Test takers: 2,230;
2010: Programs: 78;
2010: Test takers: 1,716;
2008-2010: Programs: 98;
2008-2010: Test takers: 7,106.
State: California;
Exam: Manicurist;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 10;
2008: Test takers: 103;
2009: Programs: 8;
2009: Test takers: 60;
2010: Programs: 8;
2010: Test takers: 74;
2008-2010: Programs: 13;
2008-2010: Test takers: 237.
State: California;
Exam: Esthetician;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 92;
2008: Test takers: 3,453;
2009: Programs: 92;
2009: Test takers: 2,347;
2010: Programs: 98;
2010: Test takers: 2,434;
2008-2010: Programs: 105;
2008-2010: Test takers: 8,234.
State: California;
Exam: Esthetician;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 15;
2008: Test takers: 702;
2009: Programs: 17;
2009: Test takers: 570;
2010: Programs: 14;
2010: Test takers: 533;
2008-2010: Programs: 17;
2008-2010: Test takers: 1,805.
State: California;
Exam: Overall;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 171;
2008: Test takers: 15,002;
2009: Programs: 174;
2009: Test takers: 12,296;
2010: Programs: 175;
2010: Test takers: 12,659;
2008-2010: Programs: 182;
2008-2010: Test takers: 39,957.
State: California;
Exam: Overall;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 28;
2008: Test takers: 2,618;
2009: Programs: 28;
2009: Test takers: 2,201;
2010: Programs: 28;
2010: Test takers: 2,267;
2008-2010: Programs: 29;
2008-2010: Test takers: 7,086.
State: Florida;
Exam: Cosmetology;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 2008 data unavailable;
2008: Test takers: 2008 data unavailable;
2009: Programs: 65;
2009: Test takers: 1,216;
2010: Programs: 77;
2010: Test takers: 3,327;
2008-2010: Programs: 79;
2008-2010: Test takers: 4,543.
State: Florida;
Exam: Cosmetology;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Programs: 2008 data unavailable;
2008: Test takers: 2008 data unavailable;
2009: Programs: 1;
2009: Test takers: 3;
2010: Programs: 1;
2010: Test takers: 10;
2008-2010: Programs: 1;
2008-2010: Test takers: 13.
State: Florida;
Exam: Cosmetology;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 2008 data unavailable;
2008: Test takers: 2008 data unavailable;
2009: Programs: 42;
2009: Test takers: 432;
2010: Programs: 42;
2010: Test takers: 1,182;
2008-2010: Programs: 44;
2008-2010: Test takers: 1,614.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Apprentice;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 13;
2008: Test takers: 46;
2009: Programs: 16;
2009: Test takers: 52;
2010: Programs: 14;
2010: Test takers: 48;
2008-2010: Programs: 20;
2008-2010: Test takers: 146.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Apprentice;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 34;
2008: Test takers: 255;
2009: Programs: 40;
2009: Test takers: 317;
2010: Programs: 39;
2010: Test takers: 245;
2008-2010: Programs: 45;
2008-2010: Test takers: 817.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Cosmetology;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 29;
2008: Test takers: 569;
2009: Programs: 32;
2009: Test takers: 714;
2010: Programs: 36;
2010: Test takers: 963;
2008-2010: Programs: 40;
2008-2010: Test takers: 2,246.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Cosmetology;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 42;
2008: Test takers: 349;
2009: Programs: 51;
2009: Test takers: 495;
2010: Programs: 51;
2010: Test takers: 698;
2008-2010: Programs: 53;
2008-2010: Test takers: 1,542.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Manicurist;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 11;
2008: Test takers: 69;
2009: Programs: 10;
2009: Test takers: 45;
2010: Programs: 11;
2010: Test takers: 55;
2008-2010: Programs: 23;
2008-2010: Test takers: 169.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Manicurist;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 28;
2008: Test takers: 107;
2009: Programs: 29;
2009: Test takers: 93;
2010: Programs: 20;
2010: Test takers: 80;
2008-2010: Programs: 40;
2008-2010: Test takers: 280.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Cosmetology teacher;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 14;
2008: Test takers: 20;
2009: Programs: 14;
2009: Test takers: 21;
2010: Programs: 20;
2010: Test takers: 30;
2008-2010: Programs: 26;
2008-2010: Test takers: 71.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Cosmetology teacher;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 17;
2008: Test takers: 24;
2009: Programs: 19;
2009: Test takers: 31;
2010: Programs: 17;
2010: Test takers: 26;
2008-2010: Programs: 31;
2008-2010: Test takers: 81.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Esthetician;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 11;
2008: Test takers: 138;
2009: Programs: 12;
2009: Test takers: 150;
2010: Programs: 8;
2010: Test takers: 151;
2008-2010: Programs: 16;
2008-2010: Test takers: 439.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Esthetician;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 22;
2008: Test takers: 180;
2009: Programs: 25;
2009: Test takers: 187;
2010: Programs: 25;
2010: Test takers: 160;
2008-2010: Programs: 32;
2008-2010: Test takers: 527.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Esthetician teacher;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 1;
2009: Programs: 3;
2009: Test takers: 3;
2010: Programs: 0;
2010: Test takers: 0;
2008-2010: Programs: 3;
2008-2010: Test takers: 4.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Esthetician teacher;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 4;
2008: Test takers: 4;
2009: Programs: 1;
2009: Test takers: 1;
2010: Programs: 3;
2010: Test takers: 3;
2008-2010: Programs: 7;
2008-2010: Test takers: 8.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Manicurist teacher;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 1;
2009: Programs: 1;
2009: Test takers: 1;
2010: Programs: 0;
2010: Test takers: 0;
2008-2010: Programs: 2;
2008-2010: Test takers: 2.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Manicurist teacher;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 0;
2008: Test takers: 0;
2009: Programs: 1;
2009: Test takers: 1;
2010: Programs: 0;
2010: Test takers: 0;
2008-2010: Programs: 1;
2008-2010: Test takers: 1.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Overall;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 35;
2008: Test takers: 844;
2009: Programs: 35;
2009: Test takers: 986;
2010: Programs: 41;
2010: Test takers: 1,247;
2008-2010: Programs: 46;
2008-2010: Test takers: 3,077.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Overall;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 50;
2008: Test takers: 919;
2009: Programs: 55;
2009: Test takers: 1,125;
2010: Programs: 55;
2010: Test takers: 1,212;
2008-2010: Programs: 59;
2008-2010: Test takers: 3,256.
State: Texas;
Exam: Facialist;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 41;
2008: Test takers: 711;
2009: Programs: 41;
2009: Test takers: 742;
2010: Programs: 37;
2010: Test takers: 594;
2008-2010: Programs: 47;
2008-2010: Test takers: 2,047.
State: Texas;
Exam: Facialist;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 3;
2009: Programs: 1;
2009: Test takers: 2;
2010: Programs: 1;
2010: Test takers: 2;
2008-2010: Programs: 1;
2008-2010: Test takers: 7.
State: Texas;
Exam: Facialist;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 12;
2008: Test takers: 117;
2009: Programs: 12;
2009: Test takers: 90;
2010: Programs: 14;
2010: Test takers: 81;
2008-2010: Programs: 14;
2008-2010: Test takers: 288.
State: Texas;
Exam: Facial instructor;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 5;
2008: Test takers: 5;
2009: Programs: 3;
2009: Test takers: 5;
2010: Programs: 5;
2010: Test takers: 6;
2008-2010: Programs: 8;
2008-2010: Test takers: 16.
State: Texas;
Exam: Facial instructor;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 1;
2009: Programs: 2;
2009: Test takers: 2;
2010: Programs: 1;
2010: Test takers: 1;
2008-2010: Programs: 4;
2008-2010: Test takers: 4.
State: Texas;
Exam: Hair weaving;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 3;
2008: Test takers: 8;
2009: Programs: 3;
2009: Test takers: 7;
2010: Programs: 2;
2010: Test takers: 2;
2008-2010: Programs: 4;
2008-2010: Test takers: 17.
State: Texas;
Exam: Hair weaving;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 2;
2009: Programs: 1;
2009: Test takers: 6;
2010: Programs: 1;
2010: Test takers: 1;
2008-2010: Programs: 1;
2008-2010: Test takers: 9.
State: Texas;
Exam: Operator instructor;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 54;
2008: Test takers: 132;
2009: Programs: 57;
2009: Test takers: 158;
2010: Programs: 46;
2010: Test takers: 95;
2008-2010: Programs: 82;
2008-2010: Test takers: 385.
State: Texas;
Exam: Operator instructor;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 2;
2009: Programs: 1;
2009: Test takers: 1;
2010: Programs: 1;
2010: Test takers: 3;
2008-2010: Programs: 1;
2008-2010: Test takers: 6.
State: Texas;
Exam: Operator instructor;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 21;
2008: Test takers: 46;
2009: Programs: 26;
2009: Test takers: 84;
2010: Programs: 24;
2010: Test takers: 58;
2008-2010: Programs: 34;
2008-2010: Test takers: 188.
State: Texas;
Exam: Manicurist;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 57;
2008: Test takers: 576;
2009: Programs: 58;
2009: Test takers: 595;
2010: Programs: 50;
2010: Test takers: 446;
2008-2010: Programs: 79;
2008-2010: Test takers: 1,617.
State: Texas;
Exam: Manicurist;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 13;
2009: Programs: 1;
2009: Test takers: 15;
2010: Programs: 1;
2010: Test takers: 9;
2008-2010: Programs: 1;
2008-2010: Test takers: 37.
State: Texas;
Exam: Manicurist;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 10;
2008: Test takers: 38;
2009: Programs: 12;
2009: Test takers: 51;
2010: Programs: 12;
2010: Test takers: 58;
2008-2010: Programs: 18;
2008-2010: Test takers: 147.
State: Texas;
Exam: Manicure instructor;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 2;
2008: Test takers: 2;
2009: Programs: 0;
2009: Test takers: 0;
2010: Programs: 0;
2010: Test takers: 0;
2008-2010: Programs: 2;
2008-2010: Test takers: 2.
State: Texas;
Exam: Manicure instructor;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 1;
2009: Programs: 1;
2009: Test takers: 1;
2010: Programs: 0;
2010: Test takers: 0;
2008-2010: Programs: 2;
2008-2010: Test takers: 2.
State: Texas;
Exam: Cosmetology operator;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 112;
2008: Test takers: 3,369;
2009: Programs: 125;
2009: Test takers: 3,485;
2010: Programs: 132;
2010: Test takers: 3,641;
2008-2010: Programs: 143;
2008-2010: Test takers: 10,495.
State: Texas;
Exam: Cosmetology operator;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 24;
2009: Programs: 1;
2009: Test takers: 30;
2010: Programs: 1;
2010: Test takers: 31;
2008-2010: Programs: 1;
2008-2010: Test takers: 85.
State: Texas;
Exam: Cosmetology operator;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 46;
2008: Test takers: 1,046;
2009: Programs: 48;
2009: Test takers: 1,229;
2010: Programs: 48;
2010: Test takers: 1,022;
2008-2010: Programs: 50;
2008-2010: Test takers: 3,297.
State: Texas;
Exam: Shampooing and conditioning;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 5;
2008: Test takers: 6;
2009: Programs: 4;
2009: Test takers: 8;
2010: Programs: 5;
2010: Test takers: 5;
2008-2010: Programs: 10;
2008-2010: Test takers: 19.
State: Texas;
Exam: Overall;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Programs: 121;
2008: Test takers: 4,809;
2009: Programs: 128;
2009: Test takers: 5,000;
2010: Programs: 133;
2010: Test takers: 4,789;
2008-2010: Programs: 148;
2008-2010: Test takers: 14,598.
State: Texas;
Exam: Overall;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Programs: 1;
2008: Test takers: 42;
2009: Programs: 1;
2009: Test takers: 48;
2010: Programs: 1;
2010: Test takers: 45;
2008-2010: Programs: 1;
2008-2010: Test takers: 135.
State: Texas;
Exam: Overall;
Sector: Public;
2008: Programs: 47;
2008: Test takers: 1,251;
2009: Programs: 48;
2009: Test takers: 1,463;
2010: Programs: 48;
2010: Test takers: 1,221;
2008-2010: Programs: 50;
2008-2010: Test takers: 3,935.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the California State Board of
Barbering and Cosmetology, the Florida Department of Business and
Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, the North Carolina
Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners, and the Texas Department of Licensing
and Regulation.
[End of table]
Table 21: Cosmetology: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rate,
by Sector:
State: California;
Exam: Barber;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 82.2%;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 84.2%;
2009: Student pass rate: 80.9%;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 87%;
2010: Student pass rate: 82%;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 79.9%;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 81.8%;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 87.1%.
State: California;
Exam: Barber;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
State: California;
Exam: Cosmetology;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 71.3[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 69[C];
2009: Student pass rate: 74.5[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 72.7[C];
2010: Student pass rate: 69.2[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 68[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 71.6[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 69[C].
State: California;
Exam: Cosmetology;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 80.3[A];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 78.4[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 83.7[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 80.6[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 79.8[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 74.8[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 81.2[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 78[A].
State: California;
Exam: Manicurist;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 79.5[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 81;
2009: Student pass rate: 82.2;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 79;
2010: Student pass rate: 78.6;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 79.2;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 80.1[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 79.9.
State: California;
Exam: Manicurist;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 93.2[A];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 89.1;
2009: Student pass rate: 86.7;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 79;
2010: Student pass rate: 81.1;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 70.2;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 87.8[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 86.1.
State: California;
Exam: Esthetician;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 85.2;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 85.7;
2009: Student pass rate: 91.3;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 91.6;
2010: Student pass rate: 89.2;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 87.3[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 88.1[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 87.4.
State: California;
Exam: Esthetician;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 87.2;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 82.1;
2009: Student pass rate: 94;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 87.6;
2010: Student pass rate: 90.8;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 92.2[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 90.4[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 89.4.
State: California;
Exam: Overall;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 76.6[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 73.1[C];
2009: Student pass rate: 79.3[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 77[C];
2010: Student pass rate: 74.8[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 73.8;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 76.8[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 73.9[C].
State: California;
Exam: Overall;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 82.7[A];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 79.7[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 86.4[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 82.2[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 82.8[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 78;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 83.9[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 80.1[A].
State: Florida;
Exam: Cosmetology;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 2008 data unavailable;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 2008 data unavailable;
2009: Student pass rate: 36.8[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 43[C];
2010: Student pass rate: 69.4[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 69.4[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 60.7[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 62.
State: Florida;
Exam: Cosmetology;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Student pass rate: 2008 data unavailable;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 2008 data unavailable;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
State: Florida;
Exam: Cosmetology;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 2008 data unavailable;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 2008 data unavailable;
2009: Student pass rate: 53.7[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 55.8[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 78.9[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 76[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 72.2[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 69.3.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Apprentice;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 93.5;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 89.3;
2009: Student pass rate: 78.8;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 85.6;
2010: Student pass rate: 83.3;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 74.9;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 84.9;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 85.2.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Apprentice;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 88.2;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 86;
2009: Student pass rate: 91.2;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 87.6;
2010: Student pass rate: 84.1;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 82.7;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 88.1;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 83.6.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Cosmetology;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 75[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 71[C];
2009: Student pass rate: 74.2[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 65.9;
2010: Student pass rate: 68.4[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 65.1;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 72[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 64.8[C].
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Cosmetology;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 88.3[A];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 86.1[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 83.6[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 77.2;
2010: Student pass rate: 76.9[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 73.1;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 81.6[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 75.1[A].
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Manicurist;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 71;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 70.4;
2009: Student pass rate: 73.3;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 60.6;
2010: Student pass rate: 65.5;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 55.1;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 69.8;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 62.7.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Manicurist;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 78.5;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 72.5;
2009: Student pass rate: 79.6;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 75.4;
2010: Student pass rate: 81.3;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 80.5;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 79.6;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 71.1.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Cosmetology teacher;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 35;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 28.6;
2009: Student pass rate: 57.1;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 61.9;
2010: Student pass rate: 50;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 45.4;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 47.9;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 50.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Cosmetology teacher;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 66.7;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 55.9;
2009: Student pass rate: 61.3;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 46.1;
2010: Student pass rate: 61.5;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 60.8;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 63;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 54.9.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Esthetician;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 89.9;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 87.7;
2009: Student pass rate: 86;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 59.7;
2010: Student pass rate: 80.1;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 85.6[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 85.2;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 73.6.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Esthetician;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 88.3;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 91;
2009: Student pass rate: 88.8;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 79;
2010: Student pass rate: 73.8;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 70.1[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 84.1;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 83.3.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Esthetician teacher;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/a;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Esthetician teacher;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 75;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 78.6.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Manicurist teacher;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/a;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Manicurist teacher;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: n/a;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/a;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Overall;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 77.1[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 72.5[C];
2009: Student pass rate: 76[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 70.5[C];
2010: Student pass rate: 69.8[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 64.3;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 73.8[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 67.4[C].
State: North Carolina;
Exam: Overall;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 86.6[A];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 84.1[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 85.6[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 80.5[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 77.9[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 73.1;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 83[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 77[A].
State: Texas;
Exam: Facialist;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 88;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 81[C];
2009: Student pass rate: 90.2;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 86.3;
2010: Student pass rate: 72.6;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 69;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 84.3;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 80[C].
State: Texas;
Exam: Facialist;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
State: Texas;
Exam: Facialist;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 88.9;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 90.8[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 90;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 89.1;
2010: Student pass rate: 75.3;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 75.8;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 85.4;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 87.5[A].
State: Texas;
Exam: Facial instructor;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 80;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 80;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: 50;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 40;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 56.3;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 35.
State: Texas;
Exam: Facial instructor;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
State: Texas;
Exam: Hair weaving;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
State: Texas;
Exam: Hair weaving;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
State: Texas;
Exam: Operator instructor;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 48.5;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 49.1;
2009: Student pass rate: 51.3;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 47.3;
2010: Student pass rate: 51.6;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 45.2;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 50.4;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 42.9.
State: Texas;
Exam: Operator instructor;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
State: Texas;
Exam: Operator instructor;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 58.7;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 57;
2009: Student pass rate: 58.3;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 56.9;
2010: Student pass rate: 62.1;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 50.1;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 59.6;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 54.5.
State: Texas;
Exam: Manicurist;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 73.6;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 63.8[C];
2009: Student pass rate: 77;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 66.9;
2010: Student pass rate: 63.7[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 58.4[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 72.1;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 63.7[C].
State: Texas;
Exam: Manicurist;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
State: Texas;
Exam: Manicurist;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 78.9;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 88.1[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 80.4;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 82.2;
2010: Student pass rate: 81[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 82.9[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 80.3;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 82[A].
State: Texas;
Exam: Manicure instructor;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/a;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2010: Student pass rate: n/a;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
State: Texas;
Exam: Manicure instructor;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/a;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/a;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
State: Texas;
Exam: Cosmetology operator;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 75.3[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 65.8[C];
2009: Student pass rate: 76.6[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 71.6[C];
2010: Student pass rate: 57.1;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 51.2[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 69.4[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 61.8[C].
State: Texas;
Exam: Cosmetology operator;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
State: Texas;
Exam: Cosmetology operator;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 82.7[A];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 84.3[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 83.2[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 85.9[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 57.7;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 59.1[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 75.1[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 77[A].
State: Texas;
Exam: Shampooing and conditioning;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 33.3;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 40;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: 40;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 40;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 31.6;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 36.4.
State: Texas;
Exam: Overall;
Sector: For-profit;
2008: Student pass rate: 76.1[C];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 68.2[C];
2009: Student pass rate: 77.7[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 70[C];
2010: Student pass rate: 59.5;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 51.6[C];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 71.2[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 63.5[C].
State: Texas;
Exam: Overall;
Sector: Nonprofit;
2008: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2009: Student pass rate: n/r;
2009: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: n/r;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: n/r.
State: Texas;
Exam: Overall;
Sector: Public;
2008: Student pass rate: 82.3[A];
2008: Mean program pass rate: 84[A];
2009: Student pass rate: 82.2[A];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 84.9[A];
2010: Student pass rate: 60.3;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 59.6[A];
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 75.4[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 76.4[A].
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the California State Board of
Barbering and Cosmetology, the Florida Department of Business and
Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, the North Carolina
Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners, and the Texas Department of Licensing
and Regulation.
Notes: Two of the four states had no nonprofit cosmetology programs,
while the other two each had fewer than 5 nonprofit programs, so we
did not report results for the nonprofit sector. However, the pass
rate for students from nonprofit programs was not statistically
different than that for students from for-profit or public programs,
probably due to the small sample size.
To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-time
test takers passing the exam was divided by the total number of first-
time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The mean
program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all programs in
each sector and was calculated by summing the individual program pass
rates and dividing by the total number of programs for each sector,
for each year and overall.
N/R indicates that we are not reporting pass rates because there were
less than five programs.
N/A indicates not applicable because there were no programs or test
takers.
[A] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit
sector pass rates.
[B] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit
sector pass rate.
[C] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector
pass rate.
[End of table]
Figure 8: Cosmetology: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-
2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 horizontal bar graphs]
Public:
California (29 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 8;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 21.
Florida (44 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 1;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 8;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 17;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 18.
North Carolina (53 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 2;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 2;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 17;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 32.
Texas (50 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 1;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 18;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 31.
For-profit:
California (172 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 2;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 7;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 110;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 53.
Florida (79 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 7;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 12;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 39;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 21.
North Carolina (40 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 2;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 7;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 17;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 14.
Texas (143 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 13;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 27;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 61;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 42.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the California State Board of
Barbering and Cosmetology, the Florida Department of Business and
Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, the North Carolina
Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners, and the Texas Department of Licensing
and Regulation.
[End of figure]
Table 22: Funeral Directors: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by
Sector (All Programs):
Sector: For-profit;
Exam section: Arts;
2008: Programs: 4;
2008: Test takers: 148;
2009: Programs: 4;
2009: Test takers: 128;
2010: Programs: 4;
2010: Test takers: 127;
2008-2010: Programs: 4;
2008-2010: Test takers: 403.
Sector: For-profit;
Exam section: Sciences;
2008: Programs: 4;
2008: Test takers: 145;
2009: Programs: 4;
2009: Test takers: 129;
2010: Programs: 4;
2010: Test takers: 128;
2008-2010: Programs: 4;
2008-2010: Test takers: 402.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Exam section: Arts;
2008: Programs: 9;
2008: Test takers: 490;
2009: Programs: 9;
2009: Test takers: 463;
2010: Programs: 9;
2010: Test takers: 538;
2008-2010: Programs: 9;
2008-2010: Test takers: 1,491.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Exam section: Sciences;
2008: Programs: 9;
2008: Test takers: 481;
2009: Programs: 9;
2009: Test takers: 463;
2010: Programs: 9;
2010: Test takers: 535;
2008-2010: Programs: 9;
2008-2010: Test takers: 1,479.
Sector: Public;
Exam section: Arts;
2008: Programs: 43;
2008: Test takers: 761;
2009: Programs: 43;
2009: Test takers: 760;
2010: Programs: 43;
2010: Test takers: 756;
2008-2010: Programs: 43;
2008-2010: Test takers: 2,277.
Sector: Public;
Exam section: Sciences;
2008: Programs: 43;
2008: Test takers: 769;
2009: Programs: 43;
2009: Test takers: 751;
2010: Programs: 43;
2010: Test takers: 760;
2008-2010: Programs: 43;
2008-2010: Test takers: 2,280.
Source: GAO analysis of data from the International Conference of
Funeral Service Examining Boards, Inc. on the National Board
Examination for funeral directors/embalmers.
[End of table]
Table 23: Funeral Directors: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by
Sector (Associate's Programs Only):
Sector: For-profit;
Exam Section: Arts;
2008: Programs: 4;
2008: Test takers: 148;
2009: Programs: 4;
2009: Test takers: 128;
2010: Programs: 4;
2010: Test takers: 127;
2008-2010: Programs: 4;
2008-2010: Test takers: 403.
Sector: For-profit;
Exam Section: Sciences;
2008: Programs: 4;
2008: Test takers: 145;
2009: Programs: 4;
2009: Test takers: 129;
2010: Programs: 4;
2010: Test takers: 128;
2008-2010: Programs: 4;
2008-2010: Test takers: 402.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Exam Section: Arts;
2008: Programs: 6;
2008: Test takers: 346;
2009: Programs: 6;
2009: Test takers: 341;
2010: Programs: 6;
2010: Test takers: 391;
2008-2010: Programs: 6;
2008-2010: Test takers: 1,078.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Exam Section: Sciences;
2008: Programs: 6;
2008: Test takers: 342;
2009: Programs: 6;
2009: Test takers: 339;
2010: Programs: 6;
2010: Test takers: 388;
2008-2010: Programs: 6;
2008-2010: Test takers: 1,069.
Sector: Public;
Exam Section: Arts;
2008: Programs: 39;
2008: Test takers: 686;
2009: Programs: 39;
2009: Test takers: 648;
2010: Programs: 39;
2010: Test takers: 683;
2008-2010: Programs: 39;
2008-2010: Test takers: 2,017.
Sector: Public;
Exam Section: Sciences;
2008: Programs: 39;
2008: Test takers: 693;
2009: Programs: 39;
2009: Test takers: 641;
2010: Programs: 39;
2010: Test takers: 683;
2008-2010: Programs: 39;
2008-2010: Test takers: 2,017.
Source: GAO analysis of data from the International Conference of
Funeral Service Examining Boards, Inc. on the National Board
Examination for funeral directors/embalmers.
[End of table]
Table 24: Funeral Directors: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass
Rates, by Sector (All Programs):
Sector: For-profit;
Exam section: Arts;
2008: Student pass rate: 77%;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 76.3%;
2009: Student pass rate: 82%;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 78.4%;
2010: Student pass rate: 85%;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 83.2%;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 81.1%;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 79%.
Sector: For-profit;
Exam section: Sciences;
2008: Student pass rate: 82.8;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 81.5;
2009: Student pass rate: 86.8;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 83.5;
2010: Student pass rate: 85.2[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 84.5;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 84.8[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 83.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Exam section: Arts;
2008: Student pass rate: 80.8;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 83;
2009: Student pass rate: 79;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 77.7;
2010: Student pass rate: 78.8;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 76.4;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 79.5;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 78.8.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Exam section: Sciences;
2008: Student pass rate: 80.2;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 81.4;
2009: Student pass rate: 83.4;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 83.5;
2010: Student pass rate: 78.9;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 77.3;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 80.7;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 80.7.
Sector: Public;
Exam section: Arts;
2008: Student pass rate: 84.1;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 83.7;
2009: Student pass rate: 74.5;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 71.4;
2010: Student pass rate: 77.1;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 76.7;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 78.6;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 76.8.
Sector: Public;
Exam section: Sciences;
2008: Student pass rate: 81.3;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 81.2;
2009: Student pass rate: 78.8;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 76.2;
2010: Student pass rate: 73.7[A];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 75.7;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 77.9[A];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 77.7.
Source: GAO analysis of data from the International Conference of
Funeral Service Examining Boards, Inc. on the National Board
Examination for funeral directors/embalmers.
Note: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-
time test takers passing the exam was divided by the total number of
first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The
mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all
programs in each sector and was calculated by summing the individual
program pass rates and dividing by the total number of programs for
each sector, for each year and overall.
[A] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit
sector pass rates.
[B] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit
sector pass rate.
[C] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector
pass rate.
[End of table]
Table 25: Funeral Directors: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass
Rates, by Sector (Associate's Programs Only):
Sector: For-profit;
Exam section: Arts;
2008: Student pass rate: 77%;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 76.3%;
2009: Student pass rate: 82%;
2009: Mean program pass rate: 78.4%;
2010: Student pass rate: 85%;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 83.2%;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 81.1%;
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 79%.
Sector: For-profit;
Exam section: Sciences;
2008: Student pass rate: 82.8;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 81.5;
2009: Student pass rate: 86.8[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 83.5;
2010: Student pass rate: 85.2[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 84.5;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 84.8[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 83.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Exam section: Arts;
2008: Student pass rate: 81.8;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 83.3;
2009: Student pass rate: 81.2[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 79.7;
2010: Student pass rate: 82.4;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 82.2;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 81.8[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 81.7.
Sector: Nonprofit;
Exam section: Sciences;
2008: Student pass rate: 83;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 84.3;
2009: Student pass rate: 84.7[C];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 83.9;
2010: Student pass rate: 84.5[C];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 83.7;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 84.1[C];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 84.1.
Sector: Public;
Exam section: Arts;
2008: Student pass rate: 82.8;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 82.5;
2009: Student pass rate: 72.5[B];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 70.1;
2010: Student pass rate: 77.5;
2010: Mean program pass rate: 76.9;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 77.7[B];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 76.
Sector: Public;
Exam section: Sciences;
2008: Student pass rate: 80.4;
2008: Mean program pass rate: 80.5;
2009: Student pass rate: 76.6[A, B];
2009: Mean program pass rate: 74.6;
2010: Student pass rate: 74.4[A, B];
2010: Mean program pass rate: 76.4;
2008-2010: Student pass rate: 77.1[A, B];
2008-2010: Mean program pass rate: 77.1.
Source: GAO analysis of data from the International Conference of
Funeral Service Examining Boards, Inc. on the National Board
Examination for funeral directors/embalmers.
Note: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-
time test takers passing the exam was divided by the total number of
first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The
mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all
programs in each sector and was calculated by summing the individual
program pass rates and dividing by the total number of programs for
each sector, for each year and overall.
[A] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit
sector pass rates.
[B] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit
sector pass rate.
[C] Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector
pass rate.
[End of table]
Figure 9: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range on Sciences Section,
2008-2010 (Associate's Programs Only):
[Refer to PDF for image: 3 horizontal bar graphs]
Public (39 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 17;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 22.
Nonprofit (6 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 1;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 5.
For-profit (4 programs):
Pass rate between 0-25%: 0;
Pass rate between 26-50%: 0;
Pass rate between 51-75%: 1;
Pass rate between 76-100%: 3.
Source: GAO analysis of data from the International Conference of
Funeral Service Examining Boards, Inc. on the National Board
Examination for funeral directors/embalmers.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides:
Postsecondary Education: Student Outcomes Vary at For-Profit,
Nonprofit, and Public Schools:
Briefing to Congressional Committee Staff:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
November 2011:
Overview:
* Introduction;
* Research Objectives;
* Scope and Methodology;
* Summary of Findings;
* Background;
* Findings.
Introduction:
Spending on Federal Student Aid Has Increased, but Information on
Educational Quality is Limited:
The federal government's investment in higher education has increased
significantly-—from $49 billion in 2001-2002 to $132 billion in 2009-
2010.[Footnote 46]
Measuring the quality of educational programs (i.e., how much
knowledge or skill students gain) is difficult and information is
limited.
* The federal government relies on accrediting agencies to ensure
educational quality, but accreditors collect varying types of data on
student outcomes.
Using multiple outcomes that indirectly measure educational quality
(e.g., graduation rates, pass rates on licensing exams, employment
outcomes, and student loan default rates) can shed some light on the
quality of education provided by schools. [Footnote 47]
Student Characteristics Are Important When Comparing Educational
Outcomes:
Available data indicate that for-profit schools have a higher
proportion of low-income, minority, and nontraditional students who
face challenges that can affect their educational outcomes.
* Students with these characteristics tend to have less positive
educational outcomes than other students for a number of reasons.
[Footnote 48]
Comparing student outcomes at for-profit, nonprofit, and public
schools is challenging because outcomes can be associated with
differences in student characteristics, as well as school type.
* For example, student characteristics-—such as being low income or
minority, being older, working full time, or having dependent
children--are associated with lower graduation rates.
Accounting for differences in student characteristics as much as
possible allows for more meaningful comparisons between types of
schools and a better understanding of the school's role in
contributing to student outcomes.
Accounting for Differences in Student Characteristics Can Be Done in
Several Ways:
Statistical models: Statistical modeling methods, such as multiple
regression, can be used to compare students in different sectors while
statistically controlling for differences in multiple student
characteristics that could impact student outcomes. This is among the
most rigorous methods to account for differences.
* A multiple regression model can be used to compare graduation rates
at for-profit, nonprofit, and public schools, while controlling for
differences in age, race, and income.
Comparing students within subgroups: Analyzing outcomes for specific
subgroups can allow for reasonable comparisons, while accounting for a
single characteristic.
* One can compare graduation rates at for-profit, nonprofit, and
public schools for a subgroup of students, such as Black students or
low-income students.[Footnote 49]
Focusing on graduates: Comparing outcomes for graduates of specific
programs can also partially mitigate the impact of differences in
student characteristics, given that some characteristics, such as
race, age, and income, are associated with lower graduation rates.
* Comparing outcomes (such as licensing exam pass rates) for graduates
of a program (rather than for all students who enrolled in a program)
can mitigate the impact of race, age, and income on the results.
[End of section]
Research Objectives:
1. What does research show about graduation rates, employment
outcomes, student loan debts, and default rates for students at for-
profit schools compared to those at nonprofit and public schools, taking
differences in student characteristics into account?
2. How do pass rates on licensing exams for selected occupations
compare among graduates of for-profit, nonprofit, and public schools?
[End of section]
Scope and Methodology: Objective 1:
Scope and Methodology: Review of Literature on Student Outcomes:
We conducted a literature review on comparative student outcomes at
for-profit, nonprofit, and public schools.
* Outcomes included: graduation rates and post-educational outcomes,
such as earnings and employment, student loan indebtedness, and
default rates.
* Our review covered a wide range of studies, including published peer
reviewed articles, unpublished studies by academic researchers, and
reports from higher education associations and the Department of
Education (Education). We included studies that compared outcomes for
students at for-profit schools and either nonprofit and/or public
schools and that accounted for at least one student characteristic
(e.g., race or income).[Footnote 50]
We found that research comparing student outcomes across sectors and
accounting for differences in student characteristics is relatively
limited.
We rigorously reviewed the data and methodologies used and only
reported on studies that were methodologically sound.
Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS): For most
outcomes, we relied primarily on studies using Education's BPS data,
which tracks a nationally representative sample of first-time students
for 6 years.
* BPS graduation rates are more representative of first-time students
because they include part-time students and students who earn a
credential at any school within 6 years.[Footnote 51]
* BPS also collects self-reported information on earnings and
employment status, as well as extensive data on student
characteristics.[Footnote 52]
* Since the most recent cohort started during the 2003-2004 school
year, BPS does not include outcomes for students who enrolled more
recently.
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Some of the
studies in our review used Education's IPEDS data to examine
graduation rates. IPEDS collects detailed annual data on enrollment,
graduation, and school characteristics from all schools that
participate in federal student aid programs.
* IPEDS graduation rates include only first-time, full-time students,
and include only students who complete their degree at the first
institution they attended. As a result, we gave greater weight in our
report to studies using BPS data to calculate graduation rates.
However, studies using IPEDS data had similar results.[Footnote 53]
National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS): Studies included in
our review that analyzed debt levels used Education's NPSAS data,
which collects detailed information on financial aid and student debt
for a large, nationally representative sample of students.
National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS): To calculate default rates,
one study used NSLDS data, which is Education's central database for
federal student aid loans and grants.
Scope and Methodology: Objective 2:
Scope and Methodology: Analysis of Licensing Exam Pass Rates:
We analyzed pass rates for selected licensing exams to compare the
performance of first-time test takers from for-profit, nonprofit, and
public schools.[Footnote 54]
* These exams were for: Registered Nurses (RN), Licensed Practical
Nurses (LPN), Radiographers, Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT),
Paramedics, Surgical Technologists, Massage Therapists, Lawyers,
Cosmetologists, and Funeral Directors.
We selected occupations in which passing an exam was generally
required and significant work experience was not required prior to
taking the exam.[Footnote 55]
We used Education data to select occupations that (1) had programs in
multiple sectors, including the for-profit sector, and (2) had
sufficiently large numbers of students graduating from these programs.
* During the 2008-2009 school year, RN programs were among the 10
largest associate's degree programs at schools in each sector, while
massage therapist programs were among the 10 largest associate's
degree programs at nonprofit and for-profit schools.
* Radiographer programs were among the 10 largest certificate programs
at schools in each sector, while cosmetologist programs were among the
10 largest certificate programs at public and for-profit schools.
[Footnote 56]
When possible, we used exams offered by national organizations to
maximize the number of states in our analyses. We excluded from our
analyses states that did not require the exam in an occupation.
For occupations that use state or multiple exams, we used Education
data to select 4 states in which the numbers of graduates and
distribution of graduates across sectors provided the best chance to
detect any statistically significant differences that might exist
between sectors.[Footnote 57]
We did not directly control for the characteristics of test takers
because this information was generally not available. However,
focusing on graduates is one way to partially control for differences
in student characteristics.
We determined that these exam data were sufficiently reliable for our
purposes.
We conducted our review between November 2010 and November 2011 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Table: Types of Licensing Exams and Number of States Included in GAO's
Review:
Occupation: RN and LPN;
National exam: Yes;
State specific/multiple national exams: No;
Number of states included in GAO's review: 50.
Occupation: Paramedic;
National exam: Yes;
State specific/multiple national exams: No;
Number of states included in GAO's review: 38.
Occupation: Radiographer;
National exam: Yes;
State specific/multiple national exams: No;
Number of states included in GAO's review: 34.
Occupation: EMT;
National exam: Yes;
State specific/multiple national exams: No;
Number of states included in GAO's review: 32.
Occupation: Funeral Director;
National exam: Yes;
State specific/multiple national exams: No;
Number of states included in GAO's review: 32.
Occupation: Surgical Technologist[A];
National exam: Yes;
State specific/multiple national exams: No;
Number of states included in GAO's review: 2.
Occupation: Cosmetologist;
National exam: No;
State specific/multiple national exams: Yes;
Number of states included in GAO's review: 4.
Occupation: Massage Therapist;
National exam: No;
State specific/multiple national exams: Yes;
Number of states included in GAO's review: 4.
Occupation: Lawyer;
National exam: No.
State specific/multiple national exams: Yes.
Number of states included in GAO's review: 3.
Source: GAO analysis of data from testing entities.
[A] No states license surgical technologists, but two states generally
require them to pass a particular national exam to practice in the
state.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Summary of Findings:
Student Outcomes Vary by Type of Institution Attended:
Limited research suggests that, after accounting for differences in at
least one student characteristic:
* students from for-profit schools had higher graduation rates for
certificate programs, similar graduation rates for associate's degree
programs, and lower graduation rates for bachelor's degree programs
than students from nonprofit and public schools.
* students from for-profit schools had similar earnings, but higher
unemployment than students from nonprofit and public schools
* bachelor's degree recipients from for-profit schools had higher
total student loan debt than bachelor's degree recipients from
nonprofit and public schools.
* for-profit schools had higher default rates than 4-year public
schools, but results were mixed when comparing for-profit schools with
other types of schools.
Between 2008 and 2010, graduates of for-profit schools generally had
lower pass rates on licensing exams than graduates of nonprofit and
public schools.
[End of section]
Background: School Sectors:
Different Types of Schools Can Receive Federal Student Aid Funds:
Different types of schools can receive federal student aid funds.
* Sector:
- Public schools: operated and funded by state or local governments.
- Nonprofit schools: owned and operated by nonprofit organizations
whose net earnings do not benefit any shareholder or individual.
- For-profit schools: privately owned and net earnings can benefit a
shareholder or individual.
* Institution Level:
- 4 year and above: Colleges and universities that typically offer
bachelor's and higher level degrees, but can also offer associate's
degrees.
- 2 year: Community colleges and other schools that typically offer
associate's degrees, but can also offer certificate programs.
- Less than 2 year: Vocational and technical schools that offer
certificate programs, but typically not degrees.
Background: Program Types:
Most Students Attend 4-Year Schools:
Figure: Enrollment by Institution Level and School Sector, 2009-2010:
Public:
4-year: 52%;
2-year: 48%.
Nonprofit:
4-year: 65%;
2-year: 21%;
Less than 2-year: 15%.
For-profit:
4-year: 98%;
2-year: 1%;
Less than 2-year: 1%.
Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS data.
[End of figure]
In each sector—-for-profit, nonprofit, and public-—more than half of
students attend 4-year schools.[Footnote 58]
Since the 1999-2000 school year, about half of public school
enrollment and almost all nonprofit school enrollment has been at 4-
year schools.
In contrast, enrollment at 4-year schools represented 37 percent of
total for-profit enrollment in the 1999-2000 school year, but grew to
65 percent in the 2009-2010 school year.
Background: Enrollment:
Enrollment in All Sectors Grew in Last 20 Years, but Grew Faster at
For-Profit Schools:
Student enrollment at all schools has increased since 1990, with most
of the growth occurring since 2000.
Although most students attend public and nonprofit schools, enrollment
at for-profit schools has grown faster in recent years.
Some of the largest for-profit schools are reporting decreased
enrollment in 2011 due to a variety of factors, including economic
conditions and changing admissions practices.
Figure: Increase in Enrollment by School Sector, from 1990 to 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
Public:
1990 enrollment: 11.1 million;
2010 enrollment: 15.0 million;
Change since 1990: 35% increase.
Nonprofit:
1990 enrollment: 2.9 million;
2010 enrollment: 4.0 million;
Change since 1990: 38% increase.
For-profit:
1990 enrollment: 0.7 million;
2010 enrollment: 2.3 million;
Change since 1990: 229% increase.
Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS data.
[End of figure]
Background: Publicly-Traded Schools:
Enrollment at For-Profit Schools Has Shifted from Small, Local Schools
to Large, Publicly-Traded Companies:
Prior to the 1990s, for-profit schools were traditionally owned by
local, sole proprietors.
In the 1990s, large, publicly-traded companies began enrolling
significant numbers of students. Enrollment in the for-profit sector
is increasingly concentrated in these schools.[Footnote 59]
* Schools owned by 10 publicly-traded for-profit companies enrolled 50
percent of all for-profit school students in the fall of 2009.
Background: Student Characteristics:
For-Profit Schools Enroll a Higher Proportion of Minority Students:
A higher percentage of students at for-profit schools are Black or
Hispanic compared to other schools.
Public and nonprofit schools enroll a slightly higher percentage of
Asian/Pacific Islander students than for-profit schools.
Figure: Race of Students by School Sector, Fall 2009[A]:
[Refer to PDF for image: 3 pie-charts]
Public:
White, non-Hispanic: 61%;
Hispanic: 15%;
Black: 13%;
Asian/Pacific Islander: 7%;
Other: 4%.
Nonprofit:
White, non-Hispanic: 65%;
Hispanic: 12%;
Black: 12%;
Asian/Pacific Islander: 5%;
Other: 5%.
For-profit:
White, non-Hispanic: 46%;
Hispanic: 20%;
Black: 27%;
Asian/Pacific Islander: 3%;
Other: 3%.
Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS data.
Notes: Figures exclude students of unknown race. Percentages may not
add to 100 due to rounding.
[A] This is the most recent race data available from IPEDS.
[End of figure]
For-Profit Schools Enroll a Higher Proportion of Students Who Are
Older, Female, and Have Lower Incomes:
For-profit schools enroll a higher percentage of students who are age
25 and older, female, and financially independent than nonprofit and
public schools.
Students at for-profit schools tend to have lower family incomes and a
smaller proportion of their parents have attained an associate's
degree or higher.
Table: Percentage of Students with Selected Characteristics, by
Sector, 2008[A]:
School sector: For-profit;
Age 25 or older: 57%;
Female: 69%;
Financially independent: 76%.
School sector: Nonprofit;
Age 25 or older: 28%;
Female: 57%;
Financially independent: 34%.
School sector: Public;
Age 25 or older: 35%;
Female: 55%;
Financially independent: 46%;
Family Income and Parental Education of Students, by Sector, 2008[A]:
School sector: For-profit;
Annual median family income: $22,932;
Percent of students with parents who had an associate's degree or
higher: 34%.
School sector: Nonprofit;
Annual median family income: $61,827;
Percent of students with parents who had an associate's degree or
higher: 63%.
School sector: Public;
Annual median family income: $44,878;
Percent of students with parents who had an associate's degree or
higher: 52%.
Source: GAO analysis of 2008 NPSAS dataset.
[A] This is the most recent NPSAS data available.
[End of table]
Background: Funding:
Federal Student Aid at All Schools Has Increased in Recent Years, but
Has Grown Faster at For-Profit Schools:
Between the 2001-2002 and 2009-2010 school years, federal student aid
increased 325 percent at for-profit schools, from almost $8 billion to
$32 billion.
During the same time frame, federal student aid has increased much
less at other schools.
Figure: Increase in Federal Student Aid by School Sector, between 2002
and 2009-2010 School years:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Public:
Up from $30.8 billion to $63.6 billion;
106% increase ($32.8 billion).
Nonprofit:
Up from $7.6 billion to $32.3 billion;
325% increase ($242.7 billion).
Source: GAO analysis of Education's annual federal student aid
funding data. Dollar amounts have been adjusted for inflation using
the Gross Domestic Product Price Index and represent fiscal year 2011
dollars.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Finding 1: Student Outcomes—Overview:
Limited Research Suggests that For-Profit School Students Generally
Have Different Outcomes than Nonprofit or Public School Students:
Relatively few studies have compared student outcomes across sectors
while accounting for differences in student characteristics.[Footnote
60]
Several studies that account for student characteristics, such as
gender or race, suggest that students at for-profit schools had:
* higher graduation rates for certificate programs than students at
nonprofit and public schools;
* similar graduation rates for associate's degree programs as students
at nonprofit and public schools;
* lower graduation rates for bachelor's degree programs than students
at nonprofit and public schools;[Footnote 61]
* comparable earnings when employed, but higher rates of unemployment;
and;
* a higher proportion of bachelor's degree recipients who took out
loans, and generally had higher total debt.
Two studies that account for student characteristics show that for-
profit schools have higher default rates than 4-year public schools,
but results are mixed when comparing for-profit schools to 4-year
nonprofit schools and 2-year nonprofit and public schools.
Finding 1: Graduation Rates-—Certificate Programs:
Two Studies Show that For-Profit School Students Had Higher Graduation
Rates for Certificate Programs:
One study shows that when comparing students with a selected
characteristic (e.g., male, Hispanic, or low income), those who
started at for-profit schools generally had higher graduation rates
from certificate programs than students who started at 2-year public
schools (see figure).[Footnote 62]
* About 36 percent of low income students who started at for-profit
schools completed a certificate, compared to 6 percent at 2-year
public schools.
Ongoing research from another study that controls for multiple student
characteristics at a time (e.g., race, gender, age, income, marital
status, delayed enrollment, and parental education) suggests that
students who started in certificate programs at for-profit schools
during the 2003-2004 school year were about 9 percentage points more
likely to obtain a certificate within 6 years than students at other
schools.[Footnote 63]
Figure: Percentage of Students Who Completed Certificate Programs
within Six Years, for Students Starting at For-Profit and Two-Year
Public Schools during the 2003-2004 School Year[A]:
Male:
Two-year public: 8%;
For profit: 21%.
Female:
Two-year public: 9%;
For profit: 35%.
Age when first enrolled: 18 or less;
Two-year public: 6%;
For profit: 29%.
Age when first enrolled: 19;
Two-year public: 7%;
For profit: 34%.
Age when first enrolled: 20-23;
Two-year public: 8%;
For profit: 32%.
Age when first enrolled: 24-29;
Two-year public: 13%;
For profit: 33%.
Age when first enrolled: 30 or more;
Two-year public: 12%;
For profit: 27%.
White, non-Hispanic: 9%;
Two-year public: 25%.
For profit:
Hispanic:
Two-year public: 10%;
For profit: 29%.
Black:
Two-year public: 6%;
For profit: 43%.
Dependent:
Two-year public: 6%;
For profit: 32%.
Independent:
Two-year public: 12%;
For profit: 30%.
Low Income:
Two-year public: 6%;
For profit: 36%.
Risk factors when first enrolled: none;
Two-year public: 5%;
For profit: 29%.
Risk factors when first enrolled: 1;
Two-year public: 8%;
For profit: 32%.
Risk factors when first enrolled: 2 or 3;
Two-year public: 9%;
For profit: 36%.
Risk factors when first enrolled: 4 or more;
Two-year public: 12%;
For profit: 28%.
Source: GAO analysis of data from Skomsvold, P., Radford, A.W., and
Berkner, L. (2011). Study used BPS data. Graduation rates are
associated with the first school attended and are for the highest
degree earned within 6 years.
[A] Analysis does not differentiate between 2 and 4-year for-profit
schools or control for the program students start in or if they
transfer to higher degree programs. Dependency status refers to
whether students are financially dependent on their parents. Risk
factors include: no high school diploma, delayed or part-time
enrollment, financial independence, having dependents, being a single
parent, and working full time.
[End of figure]
Finding 1: Graduation Rates-—Associate's Degrees:
Two Studies Show that For-Profit School Students Had Similar
Graduation Rates for Associate's Degree Programs:
One study shows that students who started at for-profit schools during
the 2003-2004 school year generally had comparable graduation rates
for associate's degree programs as students who started at 2-year
public schools.[Footnote 64]
* This study analyzed graduation rates for separate groups of students
based on a single characteristic, such as gender, age, or parents'
education level.
Ongoing research from another study controlling for multiple student
characteristics at a time (e.g., race, gender, age, income, marital
status, delayed enrollment, and parental education) has not found
statistically significant differences in graduation rates between
students who started in associate's degree programs at for-profit
schools and similar students who started in associate's degree
programs at other 2-year schools during the 2003-2004 school
year.[Footnote 65]
Finding 1: Graduation Rates—-Bachelor's Degrees:
Several Studies Show that Students at For-Profit Schools Were Less
Likely to Graduate from a Bachelor's Degree Program:
One study shows that when comparing students with a selected
characteristic (e.g., low income or delayed enrollment), those who
started at for-profit schools generally had lower graduation rates
from bachelor's degree programs than students who started at other
schools (see figure).[Footnote 66]
Ongoing research from another study controlling for multiple
characteristics at a time (e.g., race, gender, age, income, marital
status, and delayed enrollment) suggests that students who started a
bachelor's degree program during the 2003-2004 school year at a for-
profit school were 12 to 19 percentage points less likely to earn such
a degree within 6 years than similar students at other schools.
[Footnote 67]
Several annual Education studies using IPEDS data also show that for-
profit school students generally had lower graduation rates for
bachelor's degree programs.[Footnote 68]
Figure: Percentage of Students Who Completed a Bachelor's Degree
Program within Six Years, for Students Starting During the 2003-2004
School Year:
Independent:
Two-year Public: 4%[A];
Four-year Public: 21%:
Four-year Nonprofit: 26%:
For-Profit: 3%.
Low Income:
Two-year Public: 13%:
Four-year Public: 49%:
Four-year Nonprofit: 56%:
For-Profit: 3%.
Delayed enrollment:
Two-year Public: 17%:
Four-year Public: 64%:
Four-year Nonprofit: 70%:
For-Profit: 5%.
Four or more risk factors at enrollment:
Two-year Public: 2%[A];
Four-year Public: 14%:
Four-year Nonprofit: 24%:
For-Profit: 4%.
Source: GAO analysis of BPS data from Skomsvold, P., Radford, A.W.,
and Berkner, L. (2011).
Graduation rates are associated with the first school attended and are
for the highest degree earned within 6 years. We included 2-year
public schools in our analysis because some students who started at
these schools transferred to a 4-year school to complete a bachelor's
degree.
[A] Percentage was not significantly different than at for-profit
schools.
[End of figure]
Finding 1: Post-educational Outcomes—-Employment:
One Ongoing Study Suggests that Students from For-Profit Schools Have
Similar Earnings but Higher Rates of Unemployment:
Ongoing research controlling for multiple characteristics at a time,
such as race, gender, age, income, marital status, delayed enrollment,
parental education, and type of program in which a student started,
suggests that:
Earnings were similar:
Students who started at for-profit schools during the 2003-04 school
year had similar annual earnings 6 years after first enrolling in
school, compared to students who started at nonprofit and public
schools.[Footnote 69]
Rate of unemployment was higher:
Students who started at for-profit schools during the 2003-2004 school
year and were no longer enrolled after 6 years were more likely to
have been unemployed for 3 months or more since leaving school,
compared to students who started at nonprofit and public schools.
[Footnote 69]
Finding 1: Post-educational Outcomes—-Debt:
Studies Show that a Larger Proportion of Bachelor's Degree Recipients
from For-Profit Schools Took Out Student Loans and These Borrowers
Generally Incurred Higher Student Loan Debt:
Three studies show that a larger proportion of bachelor's degree
recipients from for-profit schools took out student loans and that
they tended to have higher student loan debt than recipients from
other schools, when comparing groups of students with a selected
characteristic (e.g., male, Hispanic, or low income) across sectors.
[Footnote 70]
* One study shows that, among low-income 2007-2008 graduates, the
percentage who had borrowed was higher for students from for-profit
schools (99 percent) than for students from nonprofit and public
schools (83 percent and 72 percent, respectively).[Footnote 71]
* Another study shows that, among 2007-2008 graduates, the percentage
with loan debt of $30,500 or higher was greater at for-profit schools
than at other schools. For example, among low-income students who were
financially dependent on their parents, about 73 percent of white
students from for-profit schools graduated with high debt, compared to
26 percent of white students from nonprofit schools.[Footnote 72]
However, in some cases the cross-sector differences in average amount
borrowed were relatively small.
* One study shows that the average amount borrowed by Black 2007-2008
graduates from for-profit schools was almost the same as the average
amount borrowed by this group at nonprofit schools ($30,990 vs.
$29,184).[Footnote 71]
Bachelor's Degree Recipients from For-Profit Schools Had Higher Total
Student Debt:
Figure: Student Loan Debt Amounts for 2008 Bachelor's Degree
Recipients Who Borrowed, By Type of School and Selected Student
Characteristics:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Amount borrowed (in dollars):
Public:
Percent borrowing: 62%: Average: $20,087;
Percent borrowing: 61%: White, non-Hispanic: $20,432;
Percent borrowing: 78%: Black: $23,155;
Percent borrowing: 62%: Hispanic: $17,366;
Percent borrowing: 72%: Low Income: $22,140;
Percent borrowing: 67%: Middle Income: $19,153;
Percent borrowing: 49%: High Income: $18,187.
Nonprofit:
Percent borrowing: 72%: Average: $28,039;
Percent borrowing: 69%: White, non-Hispanic: $27,948;
Percent borrowing: 83%: Black: $29,194;
Percent borrowing: 81%: Hispanic: $28,343;
Percent borrowing: 83%: Low Income: $28,738;
Percent borrowing: 78%: Middle Income: $28,275;
Percent borrowing: 61%: High Income: $27,279.
For-profit:
Percent borrowing: 97%: Average: $33,046;
Percent borrowing: 95%: White, non-Hispanic: $33,299;
Percent borrowing: 99%: Black: $30,990;
Percent borrowing: N/A: Hispanic: N/A;
Percent borrowing: 99%: Low Income: $32,861;
Percent borrowing: 96%: Middle Income: $$32,214;
Percent borrowing: 95%: High Income: $34,926.
Source: GAO analysis of a study from the Pew Research Center using
NPSAS data. Loan debt is cumulative, includes both federal and
nonfederal student loans, and represents the total debt incurred by
graduates.
Note: N/A indicates that the sample size was too small for meaningful
analysis.
[End of figure]
Finding 1: Post-educational Outcomes—-Default Rates:
Two Studies Show that For-Profit Schools Have Higher Default Rates
than 4-Year Public Schools, but Results Are Mixed When Comparing For-
Profit Schools with Other Types of Schools:
After controlling for multiple student characteristics at once, such
as gender, race, receipt of financial aid, income, and degree type:
* Ongoing research and another study show that a higher proportion of
students from for-profit schools default on student loans, compared to
4-year public schools.
- Ongoing research shows that, in the years 2005-2008, the proportion
of students at for-profit schools who defaulted within 3 years of
entering repayment was about 10.5 percentage points higher than the
proportion from 4-year public schools.[Footnote 73]
- Another study shows that, for students who started school in 1996,
the proportion of students at for-profit schools who defaulted within
6 years was about 6.7 percentage points higher than the rate at 4-year
public schools.[Footnote 74]
* However, these two studies show mixed results when comparing for-
profit schools to other types of schools.
- The ongoing research study shows that for-profit schools had higher
default rates than 4-year nonprofit schools and 2-year nonprofit and
public schools; in the other study, however, the differences were not
statistically significant between for-profit schools and these others
types of schools.
[End of Finding 1]
Finding 2: Licensing Exams—-Overview:
For-Profit School Graduates Generally Had Lower Pass Rates than
Graduates from Other Schools on Licensing Exams We Reviewed:
Experts noted that licensing exam pass rates are one reasonable
measure of the quality of school programs.
On 9 of the 10 licensing exams we reviewed, graduates of for-profit
schools generally had lower pass rates over the 2008-2010 period.
[Footnote 75]
* These nine exams were for: RNs, LPNs, Radiographers, EMTs,
Paramedics, Surgical Technologists, Massage Therapists, Lawyers, and
Cosmetologists.
Data on the overall pass rates on the Funeral Director licensing exam
were not available, but separate analyses of the two exam sections
suggests that for-profit graduates had similar or better pass rates
over the 2008-2010 period.[Footnote 76]
There are some limitations to using licensing exam pass rates as a
measure of the quality of school programs.
Finding 2: Licensing Exams:
Licensing Exams are One Measure of the Quality of School Programs:
Several experts and higher education association officials agreed that
licensing exam pass rates are one reasonable measure of the quality of
school programs.
In the states included in our analyses, individuals must generally
pass a licensing exam to practice in the occupations we reviewed.
Pass Rates on Nurse Exams:
Graduates with a bachelor's or associate's degree from for-profit
schools had a somewhat lower pass rate on the RN licensing exam than
graduates with these degrees from nonprofit and public schools.
[Footnote 77]
Graduates of for-profit schools had a lower pass rate on the LPN
licensing exam than of graduates public but to schools, a similar pass
rate to graduates of nonprofit schools.
* However, the for-profit sector pass rate was higher than the
nonprofit sector for LPN test takers who completed 2-year LPN
programs.
Figure: Exam Pass Rates by Sector for All States (2008-2010):
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Registered Nurse (bachelor's degree):
Public:
Did not pass: 10%;
Passed: 90%;
Nonprofit:
Did not pass: 13%;
Passed: 87%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 16%;
Passed: 84%.
Registered Nurse (associate's degree):
Public:
Did not pass: 13%;
Passed: 88%;
Nonprofit:
Did not pass: 15%;
Passed: 85%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 21%;
Passed: 79%.
Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)[A]:
Public:
Did not pass: 9%;
Passed: 91%;
Nonprofit:
Did not pass: 19%;
Passed: 81%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 19%;
Passed: 81%.
Source: GAO analysis of National data.
Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
[A] Differences between the for-profit significant.
[End of figure]
Pass Rates on the Radiographer Exam:
Graduates of for-profit schools had a lower pass rate on the exam than
graduates of nonprofit or public schools.[Footnote 78]
Figure: Exam Pass Rate by Sector for 34 States (2008-2010):
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Public:
Did not pass: 6%;
Passed: 94%[A];
Nonprofit:
Did not pass: 7%;
Passed: 94%[A];
For-profit:
Did not pass: 17%;
Passed: 84%.
Source: GAO analysis of American Registry of Radiologic Technologists
data.
Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
[A] Differences between public and nonprofit sectors were not
statistically significant.
Pass Rates on EMT and Paramedic Exams:
The pass rate for graduates of for-profit schools on the basic EMT and
paramedic exams was lower than that for graduates of nonprofit and
public schools.[Footnote 79]
Figure: Exam Pass Rate by Sector for 32 States for the Basic EMT Exam
and 38 States for the Paramedic Exam (2008-2010):
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Emergency Medical Technician (EMT):
Public:
Did not pass: 33%;
Passed: 67%;
Nonprofit:
Did not pass: 29%;
Passed: 71%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 43%;
Passed: 57%.
Paramedic:
Public:
Did not pass: 31%;
Passed: 69%;
Nonprofit:
Did not pass: 37%;
Passed: 63%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 57%;
Passed: 43%.
Source: GAO analysis of National Registry of Emergency Medical
Technicians.
[End of figure]
Pass Rates on the Surgical Technologist Exam:
In the two states that require practitioners to pass the national
surgical technologist exam, the pass rate for graduates of for-profit
schools was lower than the pass rate of graduates of public schools in
2010.[Footnote 80]
Figure: Exam Pass Rates by Sector for Two States (2010):
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Public:
Did not pass: 28%;
Passed: 72%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 71%;
Passed: 29%.
Source: GAO analysis of National Board of Surgical Technology and
Surgical Assisting data from Indiana and South Carolina.
Notes: To avoid identifying individual schools, we did not report data
for programs or sectors with fewer than 5 schools. There were fewer
than 5 nonprofit surgical technologist schools in our sample, so we
did not report specific pass rates for them. However, the pass rate
for students from nonprofit schools was statistically significantly
higher than that of students from for-profit and public schools.
[End of figure]
Pass Rates on Massage Therapist Exams:
In three of the four states from which we obtained data, the pass rate
of graduates of for-profit schools was generally lower than that of
graduates of public schools.[Footnote 81]
Figure: Exam Pass Rates by Sector for Four States (2008-2010):
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Florida: NCETM/B exam;
Public:
Did not pass: 31%;
Passed: 69%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 46%;
Passed: 54%.
Florida: MBLEx exam;
Public:
Did not pass: 25%;
Passed: 75%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 36%;
Passed: 65%.
North Carolina: NCETM/B exam;
Public:
Did not pass: 23%;
Passed: 77%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 34%;
Passed: 66%.
North Carolina: MBLEx exam;
Public:
Did not pass: 8%;
Passed: 92%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 20%;
Passed: 80%.
Ohio: State exam;
Public:
Did not pass: 18%;
Passed: 82%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 41%;
Passed: 60%.
New York[A]: State exam;
Public:
Did not pass: 14%;
Passed: 86%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 16%;
Passed: 84%.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Federation of State
Massage Therapy Boards, the National Certification Board for
Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork, and Ohio and New York.
Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
[A] In New York, the differences between the public and for-profit
sectors were not statistically significant.
[End of figure]
Pass Rates on the Bar Exam for Lawyers:
In two of the three states from which we obtained data—-California and
Georgia-—the pass rate of graduates of for-profit schools on the state
bar exam was generally lower than that of graduates of nonprofit and
public schools.[Footnote 82]
In Florida, there were no statistically significant differences in the
pass rates of graduates of for-profit, nonprofit, and public schools.
[Footnote 83]
Figure: Exam Pass Rates by Sector for Three States (2008-2010):
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
California:
Public:
Did not pass: 15%;
Passed: 85%;
Nonprofit:
Did not pass: 29%;
Passed: 71%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 55%;
Passed: 45%.
Florida[A]:
Public:
Did not pass: 18%;
Passed: 82%;
Nonprofit:
Did not pass: 20%;
Passed: 80%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 21%;
Passed: 79%.
Georgia[B]:
Public:
Did not pass: 5%;
Passed: 95%;
Nonprofit:
Did not pass: 8%;
Passed: 92%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 27%;
Passed: 73%.
Source: GAO analysis of publicly available data from the State Bar of
California, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, and the Supreme Court
of Georgia Office of Bar Admissions.
[A] In Florida, differences across sectors were not statistically
significant.
[B] Georgia, differences between the public and the nonprofit sectors
were not statistically significant.
[End of figure]
Pass Rates on Cosmetologist Exams:
In the four states from which we obtained data, the pass rate of
graduates of for-profit schools was lower than the pass rate of
graduates of public schools on the most common cosmetologist licensing
exam.[Footnote 84]
Figure: Exam Pass Rates by Sector for Four States (2008-2010):
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
California:
Public:
Did not pass: 19%;
Passed: 81%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 28%;
Passed: 72%.
Florida:
Public:
Did not pass: 28%;
Passed: 72%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 39%;
Passed: 61%.
North Carolina:
Public:
Did not pass: 18%;
Passed: 82%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 28%;
Passed: 72%.
Texas:
Public:
Did not pass: 25%;
Passed: 75%;
For-profit:
Did not pass: 31%;
Passed: 69%.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the California State Board of
Barbering and Cosmetology, the Florida Department of Business and
Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, the North Carolina
Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners, and the Texas Department of Licensing
and Regulation.
Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of figure]
Pass Rates on the Funeral Director Exam:
Comparing the overall performance of graduates on the funeral director
exam was not possible because data on the overall pass rate for both
sections of the exam were not available. However, separate analyses of
the two sections suggest that for-profit graduates had similar or
better pass rates.
* Graduates of for-profit schools generally had a higher pass rate on
the sciences section of the funeral director exam than graduates of
public schools and a similar pass rate as graduates of nonprofit
schools.[Footnote 85] See figure.
* Graduates of for-profit schools had similar pass rates on the arts
section of the exam as graduates of nonprofit and public schools, with
no statistically significant differences.
Figure: Pass Rates by Sector for Sciences Section of Exam for the 49
ABFSE Accredited Programs Offering Only Associate's Degrees (2008-
2010):
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Public:
Did not pass: 23%;
Passed: 77%;
Nonprofit:
Did not pass: 16%;
Passed: 84%[A];
For-profit:
Did not pass: 15%;
Passed: 85%[A].
Source: GAO analysis of data from the International Conference of
Funeral Service Examining Boards on the National Board Examination for
funeral directors/embalmers. We analyzed data on schools accredited by
the American Board of Funeral Service Education (ABFSE).
Although there were only four for-profit funeral director programs, we
reported these data because some school-level pass rates were publicly
available. We also analyzed data for 6 nonprofit and 39 public
associate's degree programs.
[A] Differences between the nonprofit and for-profit sectors were not
statistically significant.
[End of figure]
While For-Profit Graduates as a Group Generally Had Lower Pass Rates,
Some For-Profit Schools Performed Well:
Graduates of for-profit schools generally had lower pass rates, but
for some of the exams we reviewed, some individual for-profit schools
had relatively high pass rates.[Footnote 86]
* In 2010, 9 of the 40 for-profit schools in our analysis had pass
rates of 100 percent on the radiographer exam.
* In 2008, 9 of the 10 for-profit massage therapist programs in New
York had pass rates between 75 percent and 100 percent.
On some exams, although the differences across sectors were
statistically significant, they were relatively small.
* Eight-five percent of graduates of for-profit nursing programs with
a bachelor's degree passed the RN exam compared with 87 percent of
graduates with a bachelor's degree from nonprofit schools.
Finding 2: Licensing Exams—-Limitations:
Exam Pass Rates Have Some Limitations:
Relatively few graduates take licensing exams because many occupations
do not require a license.
Data are not available to compare the number of students who (1) begin
a program, (2) successfully complete it, and (3) take the exam.
[Footnote 87]
Some states have more stringent requirements for authorizing schools
to operate, which can affect state level pass rates.
Factors other than school quality may affect pass rates.
* Schools may serve different populations of students. Although
focusing on graduates can mitigate the impact of student
characteristics, it may not completely eliminate the effect of these
characteristics on test results.
* Some schools may more deliberately "teach to the test" than others,
while students in some sectors may rely more heavily on test
preparation courses to pass required exams.
Nevertheless, the federal government has a strong interest in
ensuring that schools that receive federal student aid funds are
appropriately preparing graduates for any required licensing exams.
[End of briefing slides]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
George A. Scott, (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
The following staff members made key contributions to this report:
Melissa Emrey-Arras, Acting Director; Michelle St. Pierre, Analyst-in-
Charge; Jennifer McDonald; David Barish; James Bennett; Deborah Bland;
Jessica Botsford; Russell Burnett; Barbara Chapman; David Chrisinger;
Lorraine Ettaro; Ashley McCall; John Mingus; Anna Maria Ortiz; Sal
Sorbello; and Shana Wallace.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] For the purposes of this report, we refer to private for-profit
schools as for-profit schools and private nonprofit schools as
nonprofit schools.
[2] These programs are authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended. For the purposes of this report, we define
federal student aid programs as financial aid programs authorized
under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. Federal student aid
spending data beginning in the 2001-2002 school year are more reliable
than data from previous years.
[3] The federal government relies on accrediting agencies recognized
by Education to ensure educational quality, but accreditors collect
varying types of data on student outcomes. Individual schools may also
collect data on a variety of student outcomes.
[4] The term "student characteristics" refers to demographic
characteristics such as gender, race, and income, as well as to other
characteristics, such as prior education and delayed postsecondary
school enrollment.
[5] Research shows that being a racial or ethnic minority may be
associated with less positive educational outcomes in part because
certain minorities are more likely to have risk factors (such as
having a parent who did not finish high school) that can affect
educational achievement.
[6] Because the most recent cohort of students started during the 2003-
2004 school year, BPS does not include outcomes for students who
enrolled more recently.
[7] We use the term "licensing exam" to refer to exams that are
required to work in a specific occupation, even though some of these
exams are technically certification exams. Differences between sectors
are statistically significant unless otherwise noted.
[8] We reported graduation rate findings for certificate, associate's
degree and bachelor's degree programs from two studies that used BPS
data. For bachelor's degree programs, we also reviewed several studies
using IPEDS data, which had similar findings. The term "graduation
rate" refers to students who complete a higher education program and
receive a degree, diploma, certificate, or other formal award.
[9] This study does not differentiate between 2-and 4-year for-profit
schools, nor does it control for the type of program a student starts
in or whether a student transfers to a higher degree program.
Graduation rates are for the highest degree attained within 6 years.
As a result, students who start in a certificate program and complete
an associate's degree are included in the associate's degree
graduation rate. Similarly, students who start in an associate's
degree program and complete a bachelor's degree will be included in
the bachelor's degree graduation rate. BPS data show that few, if any,
students at for-profit and nonprofit schools start in certificate
programs and complete an associate's degree within 6 years, while a
small percentage of students at public schools do so.
[10] We included 2-year public schools in our analysis because some
students who started at these schools may have transferred to a 4-year
school to complete a bachelor's degree program. BPS data show that
few, if any, students at for-profit schools start in associate's
degree programs and complete a bachelor's degree program within 6
years, while a small percentage of students at nonprofit and public
schools do so.
[11] One study used NSLDS data to calculate default rates and IPEDS
enrollment data to control for selected student characteristics. While
the graduation rates calculated in IPEDS exclude part-time and
transfer students, IPEDS enrollment data include these students. The
other study used BPS data to calculate default rates. In general, a
lack of statistical significance can mean that there is no actual
difference or that the sample sizes are too small to detect any
differences.
[12] It was not possible to compare the overall performance of
graduates on the Funeral Director exam because data on the combined
pass rate for the two sections of the exam (Arts and Sciences) were
not available.
[13] In most cases, the pass rate data provided by testing entities
did not identify individual schools. As a result, it was not possible
to conduct further analyses on school characteristics that might be
associated with higher pass rates.
[14] For example, a school may enroll 100 students in an educational
program. If 75 students do not complete the program or choose not to
take a required licensing exam, only 25 of the initial 100 students
will take the exam. If all 25 pass the exam, the program will have a
100-percent pass rate. This school will have the same pass rate as a
school that enrolled 100 students, who all completed the program, took
the exam, and passed.
[15] We spoke with the following higher education associations:
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers,
American Association of Community Colleges, Association of Private
Sector Colleges and Universities, National Association of College
Admissions Counselors, National Association of Independent Colleges
and Universities, and National Student Clearinghouse.
[16] Our search also included the following databases: Congressional
Research Service; Wilson Social Sciences Abstracts; Social SciSearch;
Sociological Abstracts; Social Services Abstracts; Academic OneFile;
PolicyFile; Statistical Insight; Electronic Collections Online;
PapersFirst; ArticleFirst; Dissertation Abstracts Online; PAIS
International; PASCAL; and British Education Index.
[17] The studies in our literature review did not separately analyze
outcomes for students at minority-serving institutions.
[18] Occupations that we considered included: funeral directors/
embalmers, cosmetology, culinary arts/cooking, teaching, law/
attorneys, legal assisting/paralegal, criminal justice/law
enforcement/corrections, dental assisting, dental hygienists, medical
assisting, EMT/paramedics, radiography, surgical technology,
ultrasound/sonography, nursing, nurse assistants/home health aides,
dietetics/nutrition, massage therapy, accounting, real estate,
plumbing, and electricians.
[19] We use the term "licensing exam" to refer to exams that are
required to work in a specific occupation, even though some of these
exams may technically be certification exams.
[20] Surgical technologists who work in a health care facility, such
as a hospital or ambulatory surgical center, must generally pass an
exam to work in the two states included in our analysis. While
surgical technologists who work in physicians' offices are not
necessarily required to pass the exam, knowledgeable individuals told
us that the significant majority of surgical technologists work in
health care facilities. Surgical technologists who work for the
federal government or were trained by the U.S. military or the U.S.
Public Health Service are also exempt from the testing requirement in
these states.
[21] Some occupations we initially considered, such as plumber and
electrician, typically require long apprenticeships prior to taking a
licensing exam. We excluded such occupations since passage of a
licensing exam might reflect skills acquired during an apprenticeship
rather than from an educational program.
[22] An Education official told us that some teaching programs have
historically required students to pass a licensing exam to graduate,
so pass rates would always be 100 percent and therefore not a
reasonable measure of program quality.
[23] While CIP completions data do not directly correspond to the
exact number of licensing exam test takers in any field, we used these
data as a proxy for actual test taker data to ascertain which programs
of study and corresponding occupations were worth pursuing.
[24] We focused on first-time test takers because we believe their
results are more closely associated with the quality of the program
they completed, since they are less likely to have had intervening
experiences since completing their schooling.
[25] The District of Columbia is counted as a state in reporting on
the number of states from which licensing data were collected.
[26] To determine which states require practitioners to pass specific
exams, we spoke with and reviewed information from representatives at
national credentialing organizations, state licensing bodies, testing
companies, and other entities involved in occupational licensing.
[27] Some states use the term Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) instead
of LPN. LVNs must pass the same exam as LPNs.
[28] Nursing data also include programs in American Samoa, Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
[29] We only report surgical technologist pass rates for 2010 because
one of the two states included in our review did not require surgical
technologists to pass this exam until 2010.
[30] According to the International Conference of Funeral Service
Examining Boards, generally individuals are required to take, but not
pass, the exam to graduate. One of the ABFSE-accredited program
requires passing the exam to graduate; however, we obtained exam data
for all students who took the exam, not just graduates, so this
requirement did not impact our analysis.
[31] Results when including bachelor's degree programs in our analysis
were slightly different in one year--it eliminated the statistically
significant difference between test takers from for-profit schools and
those from public schools on the sciences section of the exam in 2009.
See appendix III for data including and excluding schools offering
bachelor's degrees.
[32] For state licensing exams, states could have different
requirements, but each individual state had to use one or comparable
licensing exams for everyone who is licensed to practice in a specific
occupation within the state.
[33] For cosmetology, for example, Georgia was among the four states
which best met our criteria; however, we were unable to collect data
from this state, so we used North Carolina as our alternative.
[34] We report massage therapy exam pass rates for 2008-2010 for
Florida, North Carolina, and New York. Ohio offers its exam in June
and December; we were only able to obtain data for the December exam
in 2008, so the pass rate reported for Ohio is for the second half of
2008 and all of 2009 and 2010.
[35] Although we tried to avoid states in which more than one exam was
used, we included data from both Florida and North Carolina because we
were able to obtain complete data on each exam accepted in these
states. Both states accept exams from two testing entities: (1) the
Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards, which offers the Massage
and Bodywork Licensing Examination, and (2) the National Certification
Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork, which offers the National
Certification Examination for Therapeutic Massage and the National
Certification Examination for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork exams.
We determined that combining the results of both exams offered by the
National Certification Board was methodologically sound after
interviewing officials at the National Certification Board, who told
us that the content of the two exams was largely identical. Results
for these two exams are reported individually in appendix III. The
National Certification Board provided results from the English
language version of its exams. A board official told us that the board
offers a Spanish language version of its exams, but test taker volume
is very low.
[36] These data were collected from the websites of the State Bar of
California, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, the Supreme Court of
Georgia, Office of Bar Admissions, and the South Carolina Supreme
Court, Office of Bar Admissions. In the states for which we analyzed
data, the bar exam is offered twice each year, in February and July.
We collected data from both exams and combined the February and July
results in our analysis. In most states, only graduates of schools
accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA) are eligible to take
the bar exam, but in California, students from ABA-accredited,
California-accredited, and California-unaccredited law schools are
eligible to take the bar exam and practice in the state. Two of the
three California for-profit law schools in our data set were
unaccredited; the third was ABA-accredited. Seven of the 22 nonprofit
schools were accredited by California, but not the ABA; the rest were
ABA-accredited. All of the public schools were ABA-accredited.
[37] We collected data from the California State Board of Barbering
and Cosmetology, the Florida Department of Business and Professional
Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, the North Carolina Board of Cosmetic
Art Examiners, and the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation.
[38] Estheticians specialize in skin care therapy and perform
treatments such as facials and waxing.
[39] Because Florida could not reliably identify the school from which
test takers graduated for its 2008 exam data, we collected only 2009
and 2010 data from Florida.
[40] When all cosmetologist-related exams were analyzed together, the
pass rate of graduates of for-profit schools was generally lower than
that of graduates of public schools. However, there were few
statistically significant differences in pass rates when the less
common tests were examined individually, possibly due to small numbers
of test takers (see appendix III for data on each individual exam).
[41] In some cases, only data on first-time test takers was provided.
[42] Generally, the entity from which we collected data provided a
list of schools with programs from which graduates were eligible to
take the exam. However, in some cases we obtained a list of applicable
schools from publicly available sources. For the bar exam, we obtained
a list of applicable schools from each state's bar website. For the
radiography, Texas cosmetology, and Funeral Director exams, we
obtained a list of applicable schools from the American Registry of
Radiologic Technologists, the Texas Department of Licensing and
Regulation, and the American Board of Funeral Service Education's
websites, respectively.
[43] To calculate mean school pass rates, we counted the number of
school programs in our data. There are challenges when matching
schools with Education's IPEDS data base and counting the number of
school programs. Some schools have multiple branches and campuses and
can be included in Education's data as either a single school or
multiple schools. As a result, matching school programs and counting
the number of programs involved some judgment.
[44] Although we have data for the population of students and schools
taking specific tests in each year, we expect some random fluctuation
in the population over time. Accordingly, we did not treat pass rate
information as fixed population data, but instead we used statistical
tests to determine whether the differences we observed exceeded what
we would expect to see with random fluctuation. We used t-tests at the
95 percent confidence level. A 95 percent confidence level for t-tests
implies that we would have less than a 5 percent chance of observing
the differences that occurred by chance.
[45] Almost 80 percent of the time, differences between overall sector
pass rates and mean school pass rates were within 5 percentage points
of each other. In the remaining cases, differences of more than 5
percentage points occurred most frequently for law programs in
California, massage therapy programs in Florida and North Carolina,
and cosmetology programs in North Carolina and Texas.
[46] Funding data is for federal student aid programs authorized by
Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, which
include loan and grant programs for students. Data beginning in the
2001-2002 school year are more reliable than data from previous years.
[47] When we use the term "graduation rate,” we include students who
completed a higher education program and received a degree, diploma,
certificate, or other formal award.
[48] Research shows that being a racial or ethnic minority may be
associated with less positive educational outcomes in part because
certain minorities are more likely to have risk factors (such as being
low income or having a parent who did not finish high school) that can
affect educational achievement.
[49] This can be done even if the subgroup represents a larger share
of students at schools in one sector compared to other sectors.
[50] In addition, we included studies that used data from 2000 or
later.
[51] BPS includes students who transfer to other schools.
[52] While self-reported data may contain errors, it is unlikely that
such errors would differ systematically between sectors and influence
sector comparisons.
[53] IPEDS graduation rates exclude students who attend part time or
transfer to other schools.
[54] We focused on programs at schools that participate in federal
student aid programs authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended.
[55] For some occupations, students must graduate from specially
accredited programs in order to take required licensing exams.
[56] For programs that were at least 2 but less than 4 years in length.
[57] There was no one generally accepted national exam in these
occupations; some states use different and/or multiple national exams
and others use state specific exams. We selected four states for the
bar exam for lawyers, but were only able to obtain data for first-time
test takers from three of these states. Pass rates for individual
states are not generalizable to other states.
[58] A 4-year school can also offer 2-year and less than 2-year
programs. For example according to the most recent NPSAS data-—for the
2007-2008 school year-—about 50 percent of students at 4-year for-
profit schools were not enrolled in 4-year bachelors degree programs.
By contrast, over 90 percent of students at nonprofit and public 4-
year schools were enrolled in 4-year bachelors degree programs.
[59] A publicly-traded company is authorized to offer its securities
(e.g., stocks and bonds) for sale to the general public, typically
through a stock exchange.
[60] "Student characteristics" refers to both demographic
characteristics, such as gender, race, or income, and to other
characteristics and risk factors, such as not enrolling in school
immediately after high school. "Students" refers to individuals who
started their education at a particular 19 type of school, whether
they were still enrolled, earned a degree, or dropped out.
[61] Some students in certificate or associates' degree programs may
have transferred to higher degree levels before completing these
programs.
[62] Analysis does not differentiate between 2 and 4-year for-profit
schools or control for the program students start in or if they
transfer to higher degree programs. Dependency status refers to
whether students are financially dependent on their parents. Risk
factors include: no high school diploma, delayed or part-time
enrollment, financial independence, having dependents, being a single
parent, and working full time.
[63] Deming. D., Goldin. C., and Katz. L. (2011). Study used BPS data
and controlled for the type of program in which the student started.
[64] Skomsvold, P., Radford, A.W., and Berkner, L. (2011). Study used
BPS data and does not differentiate between 2 and 4-year for-profit
schools or control for the program in which a student started or for
transfer to higher degree programs. Graduation rates based on highest
degree earned.
[65] Deming, D., Goldin, C., and Katz, L. (2011). Study used BPS data
and controlled for type of program in which a student started.
Enrollment in 2-year and 4-year for-profit schools since 2004 has
increased much faster than at other schools; findings from both
studies do not reflect outcomes of more recent students.
[66] Study did not control for the program students start in or
distinguish between 2 and 4-year for-profit schools.
[67] Deming, D., Goldin, C., and Katz, L. (2011). Study used BPS data
and controlled for type of program in which a student started (e.g.,
bachelor's degree). Study looked at 6-year graduation rates.
[68] Knapp, L.G., Kelly-Reid, J.E. and Ginder. (2011)-—most recent
annual report. Study did not include part-time or transfer students.
[69] Deming, D., Goldin, C., and Katz, L. (2011). Study used self-
reported employment data from BPS. We refer to "students" rather than
"graduates" in this section because individuals may have dropped out
or still be enrolled. Authors included all students who were no longer
enrolled after 6 years, but did not differentiate between students who
completed a degree or certificate and those who dropped out. Earnings
analysis was based on students who were employed 6 years after first
enrolling in school and sector differences were not statistically
significant.
[70] Loan debt is cumulative and includes both federal and nonfederal
student loans, but not consumer debt. Lithe is known about how the
debt of borrowers from different sectors compares for students who
earn certificates or associate's degrees or for students who do not
graduate.
[71] Hinze-Pifer, R. and Fry, R. (2010). Study used NPSAS data.
Authors noted that about a quarter of student loan debt was from non-
federal loans.
[72] Baum. S. and Steele. P. (2010). Study used NPSAS data.
[73] Deming, D., Goldin, C., and Katz, L. (2011). Study used default
data from NSLDS and IPEDS enrollment data to control for student
characteristics and type of program student started in. In 2012,
Education will begin to use the 3-year default rate as its measure for
school federal student aid eligibility.
[74] Guryan, J. and Charles River Associates. (2010). Study used BPS
data. Authors did not differentiate between 2- and 4-year for-profit
schools or the type of program in which students enrolled (e.a.
certificate program). This finding is supported by additional data
provided by the authors.
[75] We use "licensing exam” to refer to exams required to work in an
occupation, although some are technically certification exams. Pass
rates are for first-time test takers and are statistically significant
unless otherwise noted. In some cases, test takers may not have
formally graduated, but have completed most program requirements. In a
small number of cases, data are presented for a shorter time period.
[76] The funeral director exam consists of two sections-—Arts and
Sciences—-which may be taken together or at different times.
[77] Pass rates were calculated based on national data from the
National Council of State Boards of Nursing on the National Council
Licensure Examination for Practical Nurses and the National Council
Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses exams. Data include
programs in all states, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana
Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Programs of all lengths
were combined for this analysis.
[78] Pass rates were calculated using data from the American Registry
of Radiologic Technologists' examination in radiography from 34 states
that require radiographers to pass this exam in order to practice in
the state. Radiographers perform diagnostic imaging examinations, such
as X-rays, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and mammograms.
[79] Pass rates were calculated using data provided by the National
Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians on its basic EMT exam from
32 states and paramedic exam from 38 states. We analyzed data from 18
for-profit, 30 nonprofit, and 615 public EMT programs and 5 for-
profit, 22 nonprofit, and 383 public paramedic programs over the 2008-
2010 time period. The basic EMT exam is the lowest level
EMT exam which eve licensed EMT has to pass.
[80] Pass rates were calculated using data from the National Board of
Surgical Technology and Surgical Assisting for the two states that
generally require passing its exam to work as a surgical technologist
in the state. The requirement to pass this exam was instituted in 2009
in one of the states, so we analyzed only 2010 data. Pass rates are
based on 8 for-profit and 20 public schools.
[81] We did not report pass rates for the nonprofit sector because in
our data two states had no nonprofit programs and the other two had
less than five nonprofit programs. For some individual massage therapy
exams in individual years, for-profit students had higher pass rates
than students at other schools, but these differences were not
statistically significant.
[82] Georgia had 1 for-profit, 2 nonprofit, and 2 public law programs;
California had 3 for-profit, 22 nonprofit, and 4 public law programs;
and Florida had 1 for-profit, 6 nonprofit, and 4 public law programs.
California allows students from nonaccredited law schools to take the
bar exam.
[83] We also analyzed average school pass rates. For-profit schools in
Florida had a higher average school pass rate than other schools, but
the difference was not statistically significant.
[84] Two of the four states had no nonprofit cosmetology schools,
while the other two each had fewer than five nonprofit schools, so we
did not report results for the nonprofit sector. For some individual
cosmetology exams in individual years, for-profit students had higher
pass rates than students at other schools, but the differences were
not statistically significant. In one case, for-profit schools had a
statistically higher average school pass rate than public schools—-on
the esthetician exam in North Carolina in 2010.
[85] Not all states require funeral directors to pass this national
exam. However, for all programs included in our analysis, students
must take this exam prior to graduating. As a result, we determined
that these data represented a valid sector comparison of pass rates. A
small number of nonprofit and public schools offer bachelor's degrees
in addition to, or instead of, associate's degrees. We compared pass
rates including these schools and the results were generally similar.
[86] In the majority of occupations, the pass rate data provided by
testing entities did not identify individual schools. As a result, it
was not possible to conduct further analyses on school characteristics
that might be associated with higher pass rates.
[87] A high pass rate may not provide complete information about the
quality of a program if a large number of enrolled students do not
complete the program or do not take the licensing exam. A program or
sector may have a high exam pass rate, but also a high dropout rate if
a large number of students do not complete the program, but those who
do complete pass the exam at a high rate.
[End of section]
GAO’s Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the
performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations,
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy,
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and
reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports,
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e mail you a list of newly
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “E-
mail Updates.”
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
Connect with GAO:
Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm];
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov;
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470.
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548.
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548.