THE INFORMATION GAP:
WHAT AMERICA DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT STATE PERFORMANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Independent nonpartisan organizations regularly publish report cards comparing the states in such areas as the quality of their K-12 schools, their participation in the global economy, and the welfare of their children. Measuring Up 2000, for the first time, provides Americans with comparative information about state performance in higher education.
In providing a state-by-state look at higher education, Measuring Up relies on publicly available information that has been collected by government agencies and by nationally recognized private organizations. These public and private agencies are charged with responsibilities for national data collection. Had the National Center sought to collect data, the process of asking states to provide information for the sole purpose of evaluating and grading them might compromise the results. In all cases, the National Center has used the most up-to-date information available.
The search for publicly available data revealed many areas in which we as a nation do not know much about state-by-state performance in higher education. These gaps in information are of three types: data that are collected for some states, but not all; data that are collected but not in a form that captures an important concept or that allows for comparisons among the states; and areas for which there is no consensus on the best method for measuring performance.
|
The National Center encourages dialogue—and action—on the collection of information that Americans need to know about state performance in higher education.
|
|
| . | . | . |
| . |
"The search for publicly available data revealed many areas in which we as a nation do not know much about state-by-state performance in higher education."
| . |
| . | . | . |
|
Preparation
In grading the states on their preparation of students for education beyond high school, Measuring Up 2000 focuses on three concepts: high school completion, K-12 course taking, and K-12 student achievement. Completing high school—by earning a traditional or a General Education Development (GED) diploma—is a requirement for those who aspire to college. Statewide data on coursework and student achievement in grades 8-12 indicate whether a state's K-12 schools are adequately preparing students for the rigors of a college curriculum. But there are two crucial gaps in what we as a nation know about the preparation of students for postsecondary education.
| . | . | . |
| . |
"If states were to participate in national assessments of 12th graders, we would know a good deal more about the 'stock of learning' that students acquire in high school."
| . |
| . | . | . |
|
|
1. High-level course taking in the humanities and social sciences. Most states, but not all, participate in surveys that indicate how many 8th graders take algebra, how many 9th-12th graders take at least one upper-level math or science course, and how many high school students take Advanced Placement courses. But we do not know how many students are taking high-level courses in the humanities and social sciences—information that would allow us to broaden our picture of students' preparation for college.
|
2. Student achievement in the 8th and 12th grades. Most states, but not all, participate in national assessments of academic achievement for 8th graders. Efforts to encourage all states to participate in the collection of this information would be very useful. We have far less information, however, about the achievement of 12th graders in each state. National information about the academic achievement of 12th graders is available, but comparative state information is not. If states were to participate in national assessments of 12th graders, we would know a good deal more about the "stock of learning" that students acquire in high school.
Participation
Measuring Up 2000 grades the states on the extent to which young adults and working-age adults have the opportunity to enroll in higher education programs in their state. There are two important gaps, however, in what we know about opportunities for participation.
3. Rates of college participation for recent high school graduates, by income group. State-by-state participation rates can be calculated for all students and for students of different racial groups. We also have state-by-state data on how many high school freshmen enroll in college four years later, but this information is not sorted by family income. Such information is essential for policymaking in areas such as access, admissions and student aid.
4. Migration of students across state lines. Only one of the existing measures of participation (high school freshmen who enroll in college four years later) tracks students across state lines. The other measures of participation do not "credit" a state for those of its students who attend out-of-state colleges. In many states the out-migration of students is a major policy issue and comparative data would be most useful.
Affordability
In grading the states on the affordability of higher education for students and families, Measuring Up 2000 looks at three concepts: the ability of families to pay for higher education, state strategies to promote affordability, and the degree to which students rely on loans to finance their education. Additional data and more precise information would greatly enhance our understanding of affordability.
5. Unmet financial need for eligible and qualified students. The available data estimate unmet financial need on a national basis, but not at the state level. Such information, reported for different income groups, is crucial to understanding the extent to which economic factors affect rates of participation.
6. Distribution of student aid. More precise and comparable data are needed, from the states and from institutions of higher education, about who benefits from need-based and non-need-based financial aid programs and about the income phase-outs for receiving student aid.
7. Undergraduate student loans. Available data lump together borrowing by undergraduate and graduate students in each state, making it difficult to determine the indebtedness of undergraduates.
Completion
Measuring Up 2000 focuses on two overall concepts related to completion: the number of first-year college and university students who return for their second year and the number who complete their certificate or degree program in a timely manner. The inadequacies of the available data are several.
8. The progression of individual students through the higher education system. We know from national longitudinal studies that large numbers of students attend more than one institution before earning a degree, but current national data do not allow us to track students who move from one institution to another. A data system that tracks the paths of individual students would allow us to determine the characteristics of students and to chart their progress across institutional and state lines. This information would enhance our ability to determine how student migration affects state performance. It would also aid our understanding of issues related to the transfer policies of various types of colleges and universities.
9. Degree completion in six and ten years. Working-age adults, many of whom have family and professional responsibilities, typically take more than five years to complete their educational goals. Thus in addition to the existing data on completion of a baccalaureate within five years, we would like to have data on completion after six and even ten years.
Benefits
States receive both economic and civic benefits as a result of having a highly educated population. Four concepts are included in this category: the educational attainment of the population, the economic benefits that accrue from having a bachelor's degree, the civic benefits to the state, and the skill level of adults.
10. Educational attainment. Available data indicate the percentage of adults who have a bachelor's degree, but not the number who earned their degree in the state in which they reside. Data of this type would enhance our understanding of educational attainment.
11. Measures of civic engagement. The measures of voting and philanthropic giving that are included in the Report Card are useful, but they are surrogates for measures that would better capture civic engagement, such as levels of civic volunteerism and leadership by college graduates in comparison with individuals who did not graduate from college.
12. Adult skills. We have reliable data from the National Assessment of Adult Literacy for many states. The literacy survey will be readministered within the next two years. We encourage all states to participate in this effort to assess adults' mastery of high-level literacy skills. Equally valuable would be an oversample of college graduates in each state that would speak specifically to the literacy skills of graduates.
Learning
Each of the states received an Incomplete grade in the area of student learning. This grade is a call for public attention to this important policy issue.
13. Academic achievement. Measures of actual student learning in key fields should be explored at two stages: when college students make the transition from the lower division to the upper division and again when students receive their baccalaureate degree—perhaps on a "value-added" basis. Measurements of high-level literacy skills among adults who have completed various levels of postsecondary education would also be useful.
| . | . | . |
| . |
"Current national data do not allow us to track students who move from one institution to another."
| . |
| . | . | . |
|
|
14. Attainment of basic workplace skills. Literacy surveys tend to focus on assessing literacy as defined in "academic" terms (for example, communication and quantitative skills). In many states, however, a key issue is the attainment of high-level skills that are necessary for work-related education and training.
|
Cost Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness is not a category that is graded in Measuring Up 2000, but we hope that it can be included in future report cards.
15. Measures of cost effectiveness in relation to performance outcomes. Data on broad measures of state spending related to specific public policy outcomes will allow states to assess their comparative level of performance, given the available resources.
Over the next several months the National Center will encourage and participate in dialogues on initiatives to expand and improve the collection of information regarding state performance in higher education.
back to top