Measuring Up 2002 and Institutional Leadership

Measuring Up 2002: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education

MEASURING UP 2002 AND INSTITUTIONAL LEADERSHIP
By David W. Breneman

David W. 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.

A PUZZLING ISSUE surrounding this 50-state report card on higher education concerns the response of college and university leaders to it. Like Measuring Up 2000, Measuring Up 2002 evaluates state performance, rather than institutional performance, in higher education. As such, the report card series is a potentially revolutionary device, shifting the focus of state policy away from individual college and university budgets and toward the state's population and how well (or poorly) it is served. How should college and university leaders react to this shift in focus?
Before the first report card was released in November 2000, there was considerable nervousness among the higher education member associations headquartered at One Dupont Circle, in Washington, D.C. After the report came out, however, relatively little was heard from either the associations or from colleges and universities.
Does this silent reaction mean that a state-by-state report card on higher education has little relevance to college presidents, or is it that institutional leaders had no clear precedence

on how to respond? Are college presidents, provosts, deans, and faculty indifferent to the values embedded in the report card, or do they see the statewide measures as beyond the power of any campus to influence? Should the National Center seek to engage college and university leaders more actively, or is institutional leadership largely irrelevant to the policy focus of the report? As Measuring Up 2002 is released, it seems timely to raise these questions.

As a first step, consider how the National Center hopes to change the state conversation about higher education policy. Without undue exaggeration, it is fair to say that in most states at most times the debate about state policy has been focused primarily on the size of the state higher education budget and how it is allocated to colleges and universities in the state. When the nation was building its system of higher education-a period that extended well into the 1980s-it was reasonable for the policy debate to center on institutional development and support.

Central to the National Center's vision is the belief that this period has ended, and that a new set of questions needs to drive state policy, questions

.	.	.
.	"The report card series is a potentially revolutionary device, shifting the focus of state policy away from individual college and university budgets and toward the state's population and how well (or poorly) it is served."	.
.	.	.

focused on opportunity and the performance of the system as people pursue higher education. In this new world, it is of less importance that Western State University receive as much revenue as Eastern State University, than it is that state residents are able to participate in the work and benefits that accrue to those with higher learning. The National Center is optimistic that Measuring Up will move state policy debate in this direction. Early evidence suggests that in many states, the focus of policy discussion is beginning to change in response to the measures of the report card. What opportunities does this new policy environment offer college and university leaders?

There are, of course, divergent views on this question. One view is that institutional leadership is largely irrelevant at best-retrograde at worst-when it comes to broad change in higher education. Indeed, the history of our enterprise reveals that higher education is inherently conservative when it comes to its own activities, and that it only changes when pressed by external forces, such as state or federal governments, demography, the economy, or technological advance. In this view, the National Center will succeed or fail based on its ability to influence state legislators, governors, and influential leaders from industry, rather than college and university leaders.

Others find it odd to think that institutional leadership is irrelevant or should be ignored when new directions in state policy toward higher education are being debated and formed. Those of this opinion believe that the agenda and values put forward by the National Center in its report card series-that is, greater opportunity and improved performance in higher education-are shared by most participants in higher education, and that the voice of college presidents, provosts, deans, and faculty can productively be enlisted to promote and shape this agenda. True, Measuring Up does not include measures pertaining to graduate education and research, not because these activities are unimportant, but because they are already measured and reported by other groups. Nor does the report card stress institutional measures of academic quality, such as enrollment selectivity, but these measures are emphasized by other evaluators. In this regard, Measuring Up can never become the central guide to institutional policy, and it does not aspire to that role. By shining its light on key measures of opportunity and performance at the state level, however, it offers an opportunity for college and university leaders to work with governors and legislators to improve the performance of each state on these essential objectives.

.	.	.
.	"A number of us associated with this effort hope that this time around, the voices of educational leaders will be heard."	.
.	.	.

The National Center receives financial support from several foundations, and its Board of Directors strongly supports the report card project. Funds are in hand to produce report cards in 2004 and 2006. Time will tell how significant an impact the Measuring Up series will have on state policy toward higher education. But for those who endorse a statewide agenda that calls for increased opportunity and improved performance in higher education, why not help to promote and shape it? A number of us associated with this effort hope that this time around, the voices of educational leaders will be heard.