From Idea to Fruition by David Breneman

Measuring Up 2000: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education

FROM IDEA TO FRUITION: A STATE REPORT CARD FOR
HIGHER EDUCATION
By David Breneman

David Breneman is Dean of the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia. He is Chair of the National Advisory Panel for the Report Card.

Early in the life of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, President Patrick M. Callan and Vice President Joni E. Finney organized several meetings across the country to solicit ideas regarding the agenda for their new organization. Several months later I was asked to review the minutes of those sessions and select those ideas that seemed most promising. The publication of a state report card had been suggested at one of the national meetings, and I argued that this was the most compelling concept that had emerged. After further review, Pat and Joni asked me to chair a small feasibility committee to see whether such a document could be produced. Thus began our serious study of the topic.

The Report Card Feasibility Study Panel (Emerson Elliott, Margaret Miller, Richard Wagner, and myself) met for the first time with staff in July 1998 at the Boar's Head Inn in Charlottesville, Virginia. Together, we made several decisions: to focus on opportunity and achievement, to limit our initial effort to undergraduate education, to concentrate on performance, and to make the states the units of analysis. We blocked out the six broad categories under which the indicators are compiled and helped to suggest the indicators themselves, as well as the types and sources of data that might be available. We realized that any data we would use would have to be available in comparable format for each of the 50 states; in other words, national data alone would not work. As noted elsewhere in this report, finding sufficient and reliable state-level data was one of the major challenges, and in those early meetings we were far from certain that enough would be available to allow us to prepare a report card. The volume that you hold in your hand suggests that we were indeed successful in that effort.

We also talked about the unique features of higher education that make state comparisons difficult. For example, states differ in the scope and scale of their private and community college sectors, and these clearly make a difference. Furthermore, higher education is not compulsory, and there is substantial movement of students across state lines. We worried about giving credit to states that import substantial numbers of students, as well as penalizing those that export students. Could fair comparisons be made in these cases? We began to realize why no other organization had tried to prepare a higher education report card.

.	.	.
.	"Several of us see Measuring Up 2000 as a method of drawing attention to the increasingly important role played by higher education in the economy and to the central importance of state policy in determining the access and opportunity provided to state residents."	.
.	.	.

As work progressed, however, we began to see solutions for most of the problems we had anticipated, and we had a growing sense that this project could be done well and responsibly. Our confidence prompted the committee to recommend to the National Center's Board of Directors in April 1999 that the effort be undertaken. We proposed that the National Center—as an independent organization free from special-interest constituencies and whose mission focuses on the improvement of public policies on higher education—was the organization best poised to successfully complete the project. After much thoughtful discussion, the board approved the further development of the report card.

Our feasibility committee was then broadened with the appointment of several expert members to a National Advisory Panel for the Report Card, which helped the National Center immensely during the long, hard days of data development and analysis. The advisory panel met twice as a full group, in December 1999 and in April 2000, reviewing and commenting critically on each of the indicators. We formed several ad hoc subcommittees to examine particular issues; for example, one subcommittee worked on the issue of indicator weights, testing sensitivity and related matters. Another helped to test the indicators for unintended or undesirable incentives that we might unwittingly be putting forward to the states; for example, would we unintentionally be rewarding states that had a large number of high school dropouts? (The answer: no.) As chair of the advisory panel, I thank the members for their thoughtful and devoted efforts to help make this the best report possible. Many others also helped in numerous ways to answer questions and to test results, and their contributions are cited elsewhere.

.	.	.
.	"The report is released not as a plea for additional funding, but rather as an incentive for careful, objective inquiry into the opportunities made available to the residents of each state."	.
.	.	.

Finally, in May 2000, we presented the Board of Directors with a solid recommendation that the first report card be completed and published, and after thorough discussion, the board approved. All of us who have been involved in this effort from the beginning are delighted to see the final product. We look forward to extensive and thoughtful discussions with educators and state policymakers regarding the implications of this report and the changes that states might make in order to improve their performance.

A final word on what we hope will follow from this publication. Several of us see Measuring Up 2000 as a method of drawing attention to the increasingly important role played by higher education in the economy and to the central importance of state policy in determining the access and opportunity provided to state residents. The report is released not as a plea for additional funding, but rather as an incentive for careful, objective inquiry into the opportunities made available to the residents of each state. We worry that higher education has not received careful policy review in recent years, and we hope that this report will encourage thoughtful discussion about higher education in each state.

This project is grounded in the belief that K—12 and higher education are part of a single system, heavily influenced by state policies, and that both systems must work together if Americans are to benefit from wise investment in human potential. All those involved have labored long and hard, and we eagerly await the response of those who read it, think carefully about its implications, and take steps to improve higher education.