MEASURING UP 2002 IS THE SECOND in this series of biennial, state-by-state, 50-state report cards from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Our goal in issuing these report cards is to assist states in improving higher education opportunity and effectiveness.

Measuring Up 2002 updates Measuring Up 2000. As in the earlier report, state higher education systems are evaluated, compared, and graded in five categories of performance: preparation, participation, affordability, completion, and benefits. All states are given an Incomplete in the sixth category, learning, due to the lack of relevant information on which to base the grades. In assessing performance, these report cards include the contributions of public and private, two- and four-year, nonprofit and for-profit institutions that offer education and training beyond high school in each state.

As with the earlier report, the grades in Measuring Up 2002 are important because they tell each state how it compares with others, and they challenge each state to raise its performance. This new report, however, adds a new and critical dimension: each state can now compare its own results with those in the earlier edition, Measuring Up 2000. Every state should seek to raise its performance vis-a-vis the rest of the nation and to improve its earlier performance-much as a marathon runner strives to win each race while constantly improving his or her personal best time. The public, as well as state and education leaders, can now use these report cards for both purposes.

Looking at all 50 states, I draw three conclusions from Measuring Up 2002 about the status of American higher education.

First, and most encouraging, is that the largest gains since the 2000 report are in the first graded category, preparing young Americans to be able to enroll and succeed in college, core elements of college opportunity and quality. More young Americans-although still not nearly enough-are now taking high school courses that prepare them for college.

·	Massachusetts had the best overall performance in college preparation.
·	In 30 states, student preparation for college improved.
·	Seven states-Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, and Virginia-improved on five preparation indicators: young adults earning a high school diploma or a GED diploma by age 24, 8th graders' proficiency on math, low-income 8th graders' proficiency on math, high school students taking and scoring well on college entrance exams as well as the Advanced Placement tests.
·	West Virginia led the nation in increasing the numbers of high school students taking upper-level math and science courses, as well as the number of 8th graders taking algebra.

Second, for the nation as a whole, comparisons with the prior report card, Measuring Up 2000, were mixed. Although preparation for college has improved, the proportion of Americans participating in college-level education and training has not. Some states experienced leveling off or even slippage in college participation. Improvements in the completion category were slight, and the addition of a measure of six-year completion rates did not markedly improve grades. State performance on affordability measures improved, but most of the progress made in the period covered by this report card (2000 and prior) may well have been lost in the months immediately preceding the release of Measuring Up 2002, as many states have responded to revenue shortfalls with steep tuition increases and insufficient investments in student financial aid (see William Trombley's essay).

Third, our major finding confirms that of the earlier report card: Higher education opportunity and its benefits remain unevenly distributed among states. The chances of any American to be adequately prepared for college, to find affordable college opportunity, and to enroll in and complete a program of education or training beyond high school vary enormously from state to state and within states. Far too often, the accidents of geography, income and race still trump talent and motivation.

It is noteworthy that two states-Kentucky and Utah-have improved their performance in all five categories since Measuring Up 2000, setting a standard of improvement for the other 48 states.

Some Progress in Measuring Student Learning

Measuring Up 2002, as did its 2000 counterpart, gives each state an "Incomplete" in student learning. Few would dispute that learning is the most important outcome of higher education, but states lack sufficient information about it to make state-by-state comparisons possible. This was the case in 2000 and it remains so in 2002.

. . . . "Higher education opportunity and its benefits remain unevenly distributed among states." . . . .

We have now, however, started to address this issue. In late 2001, and with the support of The Pew Charitable Trusts, an invitational National Forum on College-Level Learning was convened to discuss the problems of the "Incomplete." The attendees-business leaders, governors and former governors, and higher education leaders-agreed on the importance, even urgency, of gathering better information about the knowledge and skills of college graduates. They considered both short- and long-term ramifications and strategies, which Margaret Miller and Peter Ewell describe in their essays in this report. The short-term question is what can be known by using information that is available or can be produced at the state level. As the National Forum recommended, we have begun in Measuring Up 2002 with a single-state prototype.

As we were seeking to develop a prototype, we needed a state that would volunteer to be first in focusing on college-level learning. We sought a pioneer that would move beyond the known, conventional proxies-certificates, degrees, and credit hours-to the less explored territory of knowledge and skills. As has so often been the case in recent years, the State of Kentucky and Governor Paul Patton were willing and able to offer national leadership in a key area of higher education reform. Governor Patton had participated actively in the National Forum and supported its recommendations. The Kentucky example that is featured in Measuring Up 2002 is a first step in the long journey toward a direct focus on the "education capital" that results from education and training beyond high school. The focus is necessary, for knowledge and skills are integral to our civic life as well as our economic well-being in the competitive, knowledge-based, global marketplace of the 21st century. We will add additional states and information about student learning in future report cards. On behalf of the National Center, I extend my appreciation to Governor Patton and the State of Kentucky for their leadership.

. . . . "America's promise is to offer high-quality education and training beyond high school for all who can benefit." . . . .

Conclusion In Measuring Up 2002, we find significant improvements in preparation for college and very modest improvements and declines in the other performance areas. The substantial gains in preparation suggest that the school reform movement is beginning to pay off, and they confirm our conviction that educational progress is possible when the states and the nation focus attention, investment, and leadership on it. But much remains to be done. The schools have been and remain the nation's highest priority, and their improvement is a necessary, although not sufficient, condition for greater college opportunity and effectiveness. America's promise is to offer high-quality education and training beyond high school for all who can benefit. Measuring Up 2002 shows that this remains a promise unfulfilled-one that requires the sustained attention of state policy leaders. James B. Hunt Jr. Chair, The National Center for Public Policy and Higher     Education Former Governor of North Carolina

back to top