Technical Guide
Documenting Methodology, Indicators and
Data Sources
For
Measuring Up
2000:
The State-by-State Report Card for Higher
Education
November 2000
The National Center for Public Policy and
Higher Education
Foreword
ThisTechnical Guide for Measuring Up 2000 provides complete information related to the indicators used in Measuring Up 2000: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education. Measuring Up 2000 is available in full at www.highereducation.org.
The Technical Guide defines all indicators used in Measuring Up 2000, describes the methodology, and identifies the sources of the data.
The Technical Guide was compiled by senior policy analyst William Doyle of the National Center. Kristin Conklin, Joy Gambino and Kathy Reeves Bracco also contributed to the research and review of the Technical Guide. Dennis Jones and Peter Ewell of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) provided an external review.
The National Center welcomes the comments of readers.
Joni Finney
Vice President
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Scoring and Grading State Performance
Preparation Participation Affordability Completion Benefits LearningAbout the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
This technical guide describes the methodology and concepts used to measure and grade the performance of the 50 states in the higher education arena. Part I presents the methodology for scoring states as well as notes on data collection and reporting. Part II explains the indicators that comprise each of the five graded categories. Specifically, this section details the construction of each indicator—its source, scope and computations. Part III provides information for two policy variables (equity, change over time) that are not included in the grade calculation, but are important to the state assessment. Part III also includes information on all other non-graded information, including state context, leading indicators, facts and figures, and public satisfaction.
The term higher education is used consistently throughout the report card. In this context, higher education refers to accredited colleges and universities that qualify for Title IV federal financial aid. Private for-profit institutions run by employers to provide training and professional development are not included in this analysis. Unless otherwise noted, the indicators included in this analysis refer to education and training through the bachelor’s degree.
States’ performance on different indicators is compared through an indexing method in which raw score data on actual outcomes for each indicator are scaled to the median value of the top five performing states. This median of best performance is the benchmark for all other states. Each state’s raw scores are indexed to (i.e., divided by) the benchmark on every indicator in every category. Naturally, as states’ performance changes across the category, the best performance of the states changes, resulting in a distinct benchmark for each indicator.
Once indexed, each value is mathematically weighted by a predetermined value that accounts for its individual influence in predicting category performance. The value of each weight was determined by existing quantitative research documenting the significance of these variables. Although some indicators are weighted more heavily than other indicators in a category, the sum of all assigned weights totals 100%. At the introduction of each category, the specific weights assigned to each indicator are described.
In practice, once the value of each indexed indicator is multiplied by the appropriate weight, the weighted indexed values are totaled. That sum is rounded to a whole number to create a raw category score. Comparing these raw indicator scores, the single best overall performer in the category is identified. The category best performer’s overall score is then set to 100, and the overall scores of all the states are indexed to this. The exception to this process occurs when a state’s raw category score is over 100. In that case, the benchmark score is set to 100. The result is a final category score to which alphabetic grades are assigned. The following grade scale is used:
|
Table 1 Grading Scale | |||||
| 93–and above | A | 80–82 | B– | 67–69 | D+ |
| 90–92 | A– | 77–79 | C+ | 63–66 | D |
| 87–89 | B+ | 73–76 | C | 60–62 | D– |
| 83–86 | B | 70–72 | C– | Below 60 | F |
The report card strives to include the most recent data available. There are instances, however, when collecting agencies require months to analyze and disseminate reports to the public. Additionally, in some cases, data are not systematically collected each year. Finally, it is possible that future assessments or studies have not received authorization or funding for subsequent data collection. These scenarios complicate timely assessment. State performance on the report card’s indicators may lag behind recent changes or incompletely capture the initiatives state policymakers have recently implemented.
Missing data presents a number of challenges to a statewide assessment such as a report card. Measuring Up 2000 measures category performance using nationally comparable, reliable data. Despite the scientific survey methods used to collect this survey data, information cannot always be reported reliably for each state. This can be attributed to the fact that many surveys do not intentionally oversample populations from each of the 50 states. Thus, estimates of behaviors, characteristics or educational activities of the populations in small states are unlikely to be captured adequately by a nationally drawn random sample. In cases of nationally administered surveys like the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), states are given the option to participate in a population oversample but may decline to take part.
To a certain extent, missing data are problematic for some categories. Nevertheless, indicators are included to gauge state performance in the report card despite cases in which data are missing for more than one state. Such indicators were retained because they capture salient policy issues and signal the necessity to expand formal data collection to each of the 50 states.
To adjust for missing data, several strategies were considered and discarded. Choosing to assign a zero value to states that did not report data on specific indicators presumes the lowest possible performance. Alternatively, relying on the mean value of all states’ performance presumes similarity between states that are in fact quite distinct. Calculating a grade using only available data distorts the weighting method applied because indicators with data become more important than those without data in the calculation of the overall grade, regardless of their overall influence in determining category performance.
Consequently, where no comparable data exists to gauge states’ performance on an individual indicator, a technique known as imputation is applied. This strategy calculates the weighted mean value of state performance on indicators within a given category for which data are available for the state and applies that value where data are otherwise missing. This technique is applied to every state with missing data, using the weighted mean score of the state’s own performance. Imputing in this way presumes the state does neither better nor worse on an indicator for which it is missing data than it does on highly correlated indicators within the same category.
A final issue of note is that of migration of students and college graduates. Migration is a critical component of state performance in many of these categories, and its importance cannot be understated. Although indicators in the educational benefits and participation categories would do well to adjust for migration, this type of detailed analysis at the state level is simply not possible given current practices of data collection. Unless otherwise noted, population changes resulting from inter-state migration cannot be accounted for in this report card due to data limitations.
Indicators,
Clusters and Weights
|
Cluster/Indicator |
Weight |
|
Cluster
1: High School Completion |
20% |
|
18-
to 24-year-olds with a high school credential |
20% |
|
Cluster
2: K–12 Course Taking |
40% |
|
9th
to 12th graders taking at least one upper-level math
course |
15% |
|
9th
to 12th graders taking at least one upper-level science
course |
15% |
|
8th
grade students taking algebra |
10% |
|
Cluster
3: K–12 Student Achievement |
40% |
|
8th
graders scoring at or above “proficient” on the national assessment exam
in math |
5% |
|
8th
graders scoring at or above “proficient” on the national assessment exam
in reading |
5% |
|
8th
graders scoring at or above “proficient” on the national assessment exam
in writing |
5% |
|
Low-income
8th graders scoring at or above “proficient” on the national
exam in math |
5% |
|
Number
of scores in the top 20% nationally on SAT/ACT college entrance exam per
1,000 high school graduates |
10% |
|
Number
of scores that are 3 or higher on an Advanced Placement subject test per
1,000 high school juniors and seniors |
10% |
After
almost 15 years of concerted national effort to document comparably the
achievement of elementary and secondary students, most of the indicators in this
category are available for all 50 states. If data are not available, it is
because states have declined to provide the data to a collecting organization or
to participate in a state oversample.
HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETION:
18-to 24-year-olds with a high school credential
Source:
U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey October 1996, 1997
and 1998 Supplements. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999. State level
analysis provided by Pinkerton Computer Consultants, 2000.
This
measure uses the following calculation:
Numerator:
The number of 18- to 24-year-olds in the population holding a high school
credential.
Denominator:
The total population aged 18-24, excluding those still enrolled in high school
or currently pursuing alternative certification.
A
high school credential is a high school diploma or alternative degree
certification such as a General Educational Development (GED) diploma.
Notes
This
indicator captures the extent to which the young adult population in the state
is minimally certified to participate in the workforce and participate in
postsecondary education. This indicator is not a calculation of the percent of
students graduating from high school in four years. Given the drop out and
re-entry patterns of many students, a simple calculation of high school
graduation rate would fail to capture their eventual completion.
Data
Availability
This
indicator pools three years of the most current data, 1996-98, to obtain a large
enough sample size to make reliable state estimates and to account for
aberrations in any single year of data. Using this method, data are available
for each of the 50 states.
K–12 COURSE TAKING:
9th
to 12th graders taking at least one upper-level math
course
Source:
Council
of Chief State School Officers. State
Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education: 1999. Washington, DC: Council of Chief
State School Officers, 1999, p. 21.
Upper-level
math course taking estimates the percentage of public high school students in
the state who take one or more of the following classes in grades 9–12:
geometry, algebra 2, trigonometry, pre-calculus or calculus.
High
school transcript data for every student in every state are unavailable. To
report high school math course taking at the state level, Council of Chief State
School Officers (CCSSO) uses statistical measures to create an artificial cohort
of students. Specifically, CCSSO gathers information on the actual number of
students enrolled in each course for a given year, and then approximates the
number of students enrolled in each high school grade level in the state for the
same year. Student course enrollment can then be weighted by regional factors of
total enrollment (weight assignments are not state specific). Using this method,
CCSSO can estimate the number of math courses a typical student in each state
would take prior to graduation. Due to these approximation techniques, variation
between the sample estimate and the actual course enrollments in each state is
possible, though standard error tables do not accompany the CCSSO indicators.
Although
high school humanities subject course taking is also important to students’
preparation, neither the CCSSO nor any other organization collects this type of
data comparably from the states.
Data
Availability
Data
are available from 30 states for both science and mathematics indicators. States
for which data are unavailable: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and
Wyoming.
K–12 COURSE TAKING:
9th
to 12th graders taking at least one upper-level science
course
Source:
Council
of Chief State School Officers. State
Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education: 1999. Washington, DC:
Council of Chief State School Officers, p. 22.
A
separate but similar indicator to math course taking, science course taking
assesses the extent to which students in the state are enrolled in one or more
of the following science courses: chemistry, physics, biology, Advanced
Placement biology, earth science or other advanced science courses.
Notes
High
school transcript data for every student in every state are unavailable. To
report high school science course taking at the state level, CCSSO uses
statistical measures to create an artificial cohort of students. Specifically,
CCSSO gathers information on the actual number of students enrolled in each
course for a given year, and then approximates the number of students enrolled
in each high school grade level in the state for the same year. Student course
enrollment can then be weighted by regional factors of total enrollment (weight
assignments are not state specific). Using this method, CCSSO can estimate the
number of science courses a typical student in each state would take prior to
graduation. Due to these approximation techniques, variation between the sample
estimate and the actual course enrollments in each state is possible, though
standard error tables do not accompany the CCSSO indicators.
Although
high school humanities subject course taking is also important to students’
preparation, neither the CCSSO nor any other organization collects this type of
data comparably from the states.
Data
Availability
Data
are available from 30 states for both science and mathematics indicators. States
for which data are unavailable: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and
Wyoming.
K–12
COURSE TAKING:
8th
grade students taking algebra
Source:
Council
of Chief State School Officers. State
Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education: 1999. Washington, DC:
Council of Chief State School Officers, p. 23.
This
measure uses the following calculation:
Numerator:
Number of eighth grade students taking algebra in academic year
1997-98.
Denominator:
Total eighth grade public school enrollment.
Notes
The
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) collects these data annually from
the state departments of education.
Data
Availability
27
states responded and adhered to reporting requirements in the most recent
assessment. Data are available for 27 states. States for which data are missing:
Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and
Wyoming.
K–12
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
8th
graders scoring at or above “proficient” on the national assessment exam in
math
Source:
U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress,
1998 State Mathematics Results¾
Data Almanac for Grade 8.
Washington, DC: NCES, 1996.
These
proficiency rates describe the percentage of all eighth graders enrolled in
public and private school whose performance on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) was “proficient” or “advanced.”
Notes
Academic
proficiency levels are determined by the National Assessment Governing Board,
based on judgments about what students should know and be able to
do.
Data
Availability
Data
were collected on mathematics proficiencies in 1996; 40 states participated in
the eighth grade math assessment. States for which data are missing: Idaho,
Illinois, Kansas, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, and South Dakota.
K–12
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
8th
graders scoring at or above “proficient” on the national assessment exam
in reading
Source:
U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress,
1998 National and State Reading Summary Data Tables for Grade 8 Student
Data. Washington, DC: NCES, 1998.
These
proficiency rates describe the percentage of all eighth graders enrolled in
public and private school whose performance on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) was “proficient” or “advanced.”
Notes
Academic
proficiency levels are determined by the National Assessment Governing Board,
based on judgments about what students should know and be able to
do.
Data
Availability
36
states participated in the eighth grade reading assessment. States for which
data are missing: Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and
Vermont.
K–12
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
8th
graders scoring at or above “proficient” on the national assessment exam in
writing
Source:
U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress,
1998 National and State Writing Summary Data Tables for Grade 8 Student
Data. Washington, DC: NCES, 1998.
These
proficiency rates describe the percentage of all eighth graders enrolled in
public and private school whose performance on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) was “proficient” or “advanced.”
Notes
Academic
proficiency levels are determined by the National Assessment Governing Board,
based on judgments about what students should know and be able to do.
Data
Availability
In
1998, 35 states participated in the eighth grade writing assessment. States for
which data are missing: Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
South Dakota, and Vermont.
K–12 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
Low-income
8th graders scoring at or above “proficient” on the national
assessment exam in math
Source:
U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress
1996 Mathematics Report Card. Washington, DC: NCES, 1996, Table B.18, p.
135.
These
proficiency rates describe the percentage of eligible eighth graders enrolled in
public schools who are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and whose
performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was
“proficient” or “advanced.”
Notes
Academic
proficiency levels are determined by the National Assessment Governing Board,
based on judgments about what students should know and be able to
do.
Data
Availability
Data
were collected on mathematics proficiencies in 1996. Data are available for 31
states. States for which data are missing: Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, and
Wisconsin.
K–12 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
Number of scores in the top 20% nationally on SAT/ACT college entrance exams per 1,000
high school graduates
Sources:
Test
Scores:
College Board. “SAT I Overview Report With Means: National: All 1200 or Greater”
(Unpublished Analysis). New York: The College Board, 1999.
ACT.
“Percent of Students in Each State Who Scored 26 or Higher” (Unpublished
Analysis). Iowa City: ACT, 1999.
High
School Graduates:
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Knocking at the College Door: Projections of
High School Graduates by State and Race/Ethnicity 1996–2012. Boulder: WICHE,
1998.
Conversion:
Marco,
Gary L., and Others. Methods Used To
Establish Score Comparability on the Enhanced ACT Assessment and the SAT.
New York: College Board, 1992.
This
indicator reflects the prevalence of four-year college test taking throughout
the state as well as the achievement that student test takers demonstrate.
College entrance exam achievement is calculated per 1000 high school graduates
in each state using the following formula:
Numerator:
(Number of SAT test takers scoring at or above 1200) + (Number of ACT test
takers scoring at or above 26)
Denominator:
Number of 1999 public and private high school graduates
Notes
Nationally
18% of test takers score at or above a 1200 on the SAT. Students attaining this
score, or higher, approximate the top quintile of SAT test takers. Though the
ACT exams are administered independently and use a different scoring methodology
than that used by the College Board for SAT scores, a common conversion method
can be applied. ACT exam scores of 26 are the equivalent of a 1200 on the SAT
exam.
The
National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS: 88) indicates that 15% of high
school seniors take both the SAT and the ACT, although data are not collected in
such a way as to provide an unduplicated count of test takers. This ratio does
not provide information on the number of
students in each state who take college preparatory exams. Instead, the
numerator measures the total number of
scores above a 1200 on the SAT and a 26 on the ACT. Constructed this way,
the measure accounts for individual students who perform proficiently on more
than one college entrance exam.
Data
Availability
Data
are available for all 50 states.
K–12
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
Number of scores that are 3 or higher on an Advanced Placement subject test per 1,000
high school juniors and seniors
Source:
Westat/
National Education Goals Panel. “AP Public and Private 11th and
12th Graders Scoring 3+ on All Tests per 1000” (Unpublished
Analysis). Washington, DC: Westat, 1999.
This
indicator measures the number of Advanced Placement examinations with scores of
3 or higher on a scale of 1–5 per 1,000 eleventh and twelfth grade students. The
measure uses the following calculation:
Numerator:
Number of Advanced Placement test scores of 3, 4 or 5.
Denominator:
Total eleventh and twelfth grade public and private school
enrollment.
The
number of eleventh and twelfth graders includes students enrolled in public and
private schools. These enrollment figures were computed by multiplying the
public enrollment by a private-enrollment adjustment factor developed by data
contractors working with the College Board. The total enrollment of eleventh and
twelfth graders in the state is used because 90% of all AP test-taking
candidates are enrolled in these grades.
Notes
This
ratio does not provide information on the number of students in each state who
take an advanced placement test. Instead, the numerator measures the total number of scores above a 3.
Constructed this way, the measure accounts for individual students who perform
proficiently on more than one AP exam. Scores above 3 are generally recognized
for college credit.
Opportunities
other than AP exist for students to take college-level courses while enrolled in
college, including the International Baccalaureate (IB) program and local
concurrent enrollment programs. The Advanced Placement program offered by the
College Board is the most prevalent in U.S. high schools and the most widely
recognized for credit by policymakers and colleges and universities.
Data
Availability
Data
are available for all 50 states.
PARTICIPATION
The participation category assesses the opportunities in each state for citizens of
varying ages and income abilities to enroll in postsecondary education.
To
broadly assess state performance in this category, various enrollment patterns
and institution types are considered. These include full- and part-time
enrollment at both two- and four-year institutions, and public and private
colleges. Due to the lack of nationally comparable data, however, participation
in non-accredited institutions, corporate or employer-sponsored education
programs, and career training are not included.
The
three indicators in participation are divided into two clusters, and are
weighted in the following manner:
Indicators,
Clusters and Weights
|
Cluster/Indicator |
Weight |
|
Cluster
1: Young Adults |
60% |
|
High
school freshmen enrolling in college within 4 years in any
state |
40% |
|
18-
to 24-year-olds enrolling in college |
20% |
|
Cluster
2: Working-Age Adults |
40% |
|
25-
to 44-year-olds enrolled part-time in some type of postsecondary
education |
40% |
YOUNG ADULTS:
High school freshmen enrolling in college within 4 years
in any state
Sources:
Indicator Analysis: Mortenson, Thomas. “Chance for College by Age 19.” Postsecondary Education Opportunity. No. 69, March 1998.
Public 9th graders: National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 1995. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1996, p. 57.
Public high school graduates: National Center for Education Statistics. Public Elementary and Secondary Education Statistics, School Year 1997-1998. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1998.
College enrollment: National Center for Educational Statistics: Residence and Migration of First-time Freshmen Enrolled in Degree-Granting Institutions, Fall 1996. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1998.
This indicator measures
the probability that students will enroll in college during the year following
an on-time high school graduation (when most students are approximately age 19).
To calculate this
measure, the high school completion rate is multiplied by the college
continuation rate. The following formula describes the components of this
calculation.
Denominator: Number of public school ninth graders in 1992
Completion Rate
Denominator: Number of public high school graduates in
1996
Continuation Rate
This indicator adjusts
for migration by using the NCES residence and migration survey, which followed
high school graduates to the institutions they chose to attend. Since many
students pursue their college education out-of-state, students’ enrollment in
college is attributed to the state in which they received their high school
diplomas.
This is a synthetic cohort statistic that cannot adjust for students’ out-of-state migration during the high school years. Nationally comparable longitudinal data do not exist to measure precisely the college-going rate of 9th grade students in each state.
Data
Availability
Data
are available for all 50 states.
YOUNG ADULTS:
18-to 24-year-olds enrolling in college
Source:
U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey, October 1996,
1997 and 1998 Supplements. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999. State-level
analysis provided by Pinkerton Computer Consultants, 2000.
This
indicator reports the percent of all 18- to 24-year-old high school graduates
enrolled in postsecondary education. The measure uses the following
calculation:
Numerator:
Total population of adults aged 18 to 24 enrolled in grades 13–17 who have not
yet attained baccalaureate degrees.
Denominator:
Total population aged 18 to 24.
Notes
Students
already holding a baccalaureate degree and returning for additional or different
credentials are not included in this figure.
Data
Availability
This
indicator pools three years of the most current data, 1996-98, to obtain a large
enough sample size to make reliable state estimates and to account for
aberrations in any single year of data. Data are available for all 50
states.
Source:
Population
Enrolled: National
Center for Education Statistics. Fall
Enrollment Survey, 1997 (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System):
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1999. State-level
analysis provided by Pinkerton Computer Consultants, 2000.
Population:
U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey October 1996, 1997
and 1998 Supplements. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999. State analysis
provided by Pinkerton Computer Consultants, 2000.
The
indicator measures the percent of 25- to 44-year-old high school graduates
enrolled part-time in an institution of higher education. The following
calculation is used:
Numerator:
Population of adults aged 25 to 49 with at least a high school credential who
are enrolled part time in an institution of higher
education.
Denominator:
Population of adults aged 25 to 44 with at least a high school
credential.
Notes
This
indicator focuses on part-time enrollment to assess the opportunities in each
state to enroll part-time in postsecondary education. It includes adults
enrolled in undergraduate and graduate level courses. Due to differences in data
collection methods, an exact age-match among the adult population is not
possible.
Data
Availability
Data are available for all 50 states.
Affordability is based on these concepts:
| · | Students’ capacity to pay for college given the type of institution they attend, the financial aid they receive and their income constraints. | |
| · | The amount of need-based grant assistance they receive to offset expenses. | |
| · | The loan burden associated with their higher education expenses. |
The six indicators included in this category combine data from a variety of sources. Together, they calculate a reasonable estimate of the actual amount that people in the state pay for higher education as well as the extent to which states employ policies to make college more affordable.
No
comprehensive, student-level, comparable state data capturing price of
attendance for higher education currently exist. This category uses best
estimates to assess the extent to which college is affordable for citizens of
varying income levels in each state.
Indicators, Clusters and Weights
|
Indicator/Cluster |
Weight |
|
Family ability to pay |
50% |
|
Family ability to pay at community colleges |
Weighted by student enrollment in sector |
|
Family ability to pay at public 4-year colleges |
Weighted by student enrollment in sector |
|
Family ability to pay at private 4-year colleges |
Weighted by student enrollment in sector |
|
Strategies for affordability |
40% |
|
Need-based financial aid |
20% |
|
Low-priced colleges |
20% |
|
Reliance on loans |
10% |
|
Student borrowing |
10% |
FAMILY ABILITY TO PAY:
Percent of family
income needed to pay for college expenses after financial
aid—
at community
colleges
at public 4-year
colleges/universities
at private 4-year
colleges/universities
Sources:
Tuition and room and board: National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 1999. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2000, p. 346.
Pell grants: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. Title IV/ Pell Grant End of the Year Report, 1998–1999. U.S. Department of Education, Table 21.
Institutional aid: Barbett, Sam and Korb, Roslyn. Current Fund Revenues and Expenditures of Degree Granting Institutions, Fiscal Year 1996. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1999, Tables 10, 11, 12.
State
income:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey March 1996, 1997
and 1998 Supplements. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999. State-level
analysis provided by Pinkerton Computer Consultants, 2000.
Grant phase-out information: National Center for Education Statistics. National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey, 1996. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Data Analysis System Variables: PELLAMT, INSTAMT, STATNEED, STATNOND, TOTGRT By CINCOME. Filtered by institution level and control for public 2-year, public 4-year, and private 4-year.
State grants: (need- and non-need-based): DeSalvatore, Kristen. National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs 20th Annual Survey, 1998–1999 Academic Survey Report. Albany, NY: National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, 2000, Table 1.
Full-time equivalent enrollment: National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 1999. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2000, p. 229.
Notes
College affordability is based on institutional price, the adequacy of state effort to meet students’ financial need, and students’ personal or family income. The ability to pay indicator examines the interaction of these important factors given 1) the variation in personal income that families of different means must pay to meet college costs, and 2) the variations in price across the public/private and 2- and 4-year sectors.
To assess state performance reliably and comparably, this indicator is based on a set of assumptions and a series of calculations that use a combination of national and state level data. The first set of calculations determines the approximate net price of college attendance, taking into account federal, state and institutional financial aid. The second set of calculations relates this net price to families’ annual income and takes into account the share of total enrollment at each of the major sectors in higher education: public 2-year colleges, public 4-year colleges and universities, and private 4-year colleges and universities.
Components of Net Price
Tuition and
fees
The average tuition and fees (listed for in-state residents) are calculated by state for each of the major sectors in higher education: public 2-year colleges, public 4-year colleges and universities, and private 4-year colleges and universities. This calculation assumes average tuition and fees for each sector charged to the full-time student.
Room and
board
The federal government adds the price of housing, food and other necessary living expenses to tuition and fees when determining a student’s price of attendance at a particular institution. This indicator calculates average room and board fees by state and by type of institution. This calculation assumes average cost of living expenses at public 4-year colleges in the state are the same as incurred by students attending the state’s public 2-year community colleges. This assumption is made in part to account for living expenses that must be paid by all students, regardless of whether they live on campus or not.
Federal financial
aid
The federal government offers two major types of financial aid that do not need to be repaid or do not require work as a contingency of aid receipt: Pell grants and supplemental educational opportunity grants (SEOG). Average federal financial aid by state is calculated as the average Pell grant per recipient, by state. Pell grants are by far the largest component of federal grant aid.
State financial
aid
States offer need-based and non-need-based financial aid for undergraduate college attendance. Separate need- and non-need-based award are calculated per FTE.
Institutional financial
aid
Institutions offer scholarships, fellowships and tuition discounts to support undergraduate college attendance. Average institutional financial aid by state is calculated per full-time equivalent student.
Average financial aid by
family income
Average financial aid awards mask the deliberateness of policy to target aid at different student populations. Without student unit records available at the state level to provide precise estimates of financial aid received, estimates must be calculated. These estimates are based on the distribution of financial aid received by students, nationally, in each income quintile. For each type of major financial aid (federal, state, institutional), the U.S. Department of Education’s National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey estimates the percent of total aid received by full-time equivalent students in each state. These national percentages are multiplied by the average federal, state and institutional awards described above. These calculations assume that students receive the same percentage of available aid in every state, but the actual amount of financial aid for students in each income quintile will vary by state because the size of the average award varies by sector and by state. These calculations do not take these state variations into account.
Net price in each
sector
Average net price of attendance in the major sectors of higher education is calculated by subtracting total average financial aid (federal + state + institutional) from average expenses (tuition + fees + room + board). While expenses do not vary for students with different family incomes, average financial aid is different for each family income quintile in the state.
The Role of Family Income
Paying for college is based both on the net price and the resources available to pay the price. By state, net price at each of the major sectors is calculated as a percentage of median family income in each quintile. The results of these calculations are estimates of the amount of family income required by low-income, middle-income and high-income families to attend college in each of the state’s major sectors.
To estimate affordability for all families in each sector, ability to pay is estimated for families in each income quintile. The average of these five estimates is used to determine the following:
· Average ability to pay for a technical or community college, all families in the state
· Average ability to pay for a public 4-year college or university, all families in the state
· Average ability to pay for a private 4-year college, all families in the state
These three measures are cumulatively worth 50% of the state’s affordability grade, but the weight assigned to each differs by the share of total full-time equivalent enrollment each sector in the state comprises. This final step ensures that college affordability is determined not only by the state’s efforts to make one sector affordable for all of its citizens, but also by the state’s policies to make its most-utilized institutions affordable.
Notes
The most precise way to measure students’ ability to pay would be to analyze student-unit record data. While such records are available for national indicators of affordability, it is not possible to develop reliable and comparable indicators from these sources that attest to the level of affordability in each of the 50 states.
Income data on the students enrolled in each sector are not available comparably by state. As a result, this calculation looks at the ability to pay for all citizens in the state, regardless of whether or not they enroll in a postsecondary institution.
An unduplicated count of students who receive state or institutional financial aid awards is not available. As a result, the average award likely underestimates the mean value of awards any single student might actually receive.
It is the institution’s discretion to report tuition waivers and/or discounting in its estimation of total scholarships and fellowships, so the average institutional grant may underestimate actual aid received.
Data
Availability
Data are available for all 50
states.
Sources:
Pell grants: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. Title IV/ Pell Grant End of the Year Report, 1998–1999: U.S. Department of Education, Table 21.
State grants: DeSalvatore, Kristen. National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs 20th Annual Survey, 1998–1999 Academic Survey Report. Albany, NY: National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, 2000, Table 1.
This indicator measures states’ commitment to provide aid for low-income students:
Numerator: Total amount of state need-based aid awarded to students.
Denominator: Distribution of Pell grant aid by state of residence.
Without having data to measure precisely the expected family contribution and amount of unmet need for students in each state, this indicator is a proxy measure for 1) how well the state targets aid to families with the greatest need, and 2) how much need-based aid is made available to all students.
Notes
It is assumed that the state’s methodology for awarding state need-based aid is similar enough to the federal methodology that the students awarded need-based aid in the state are the same students covered by the federal Pell grant program. This may or may not be true in all cases. Due to data limitations, whether or not the two types of financial aid are actually going to the same students cannot be determined.
Data Availability
Data are available for all 50 states.
Sources:
Tuition: National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 1999. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2000, p. 346.
Median
Family Income:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey, March 1997, 1998
and 1999 Supplements. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999. State-level
analysis provided by Pinkerton Computer Consultants, 2000.
Tuition levels have been shown to affect whether or not low-income students choose to go to college. Decisions about overall tuition levels are an important part of the concept of affordability. This indicator measures this aspect of affordability with the following formula:
Numerator: The listed tuition and fees for full-time residents at the lowest priced public institutions in the state.
Denominator: State median family income in the lowest income quintile.
Notes
The lowest price tuition level reflects prices at community colleges for all states except South Dakota, which lacks a community college system. For South Dakota, tuition at the lowest priced four-year institution in the state is reported.
This
indicator averages three years of family income data from the most current data
available (1997-1999) to obtain a large enough sample size to make reliable
state estimates and to account for aberrations in any single year of
data.
Data Availability
Sources:
Federal Direct Student Loans: United States Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Federal Direct Student Loan Report FY 99. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, 2000.
Federal Family Education Loans (FFELP): United States Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Federal Family Education Loans Programs State Tables FY 1999. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, 2000.
Federal loans comprise more than 90% of the funds students borrow to attend college. As such, this indicator serves as a proxy of annual student loan burden. The following formula is used to calculate the average loan amount students receive from the federal government:
Numerator: Total dollars in FFELP Stafford subsidized, unsubsidized and PLUS loans made to parents in FY 99 + Total dollars in William D. Ford Stafford subsidized, unsubsidized and PLUS loans made to students in FY 99.
Denominator: Total number of loans from both programs.
Notes
Data on the average loan amount just for undergraduate students is not available; therefore, both undergraduate and graduate students are captured in this indicator. Moreover, data are unavailable on the number of recipients by state. For this reason, the denominator we use may report individual students who receive more than one loan, understating the total average loan amount.
Data
Availability
Data are available for all
50 states.
This
category looks at the freshman-to-sophomore persistence and five-year bachelor’s
degree completion rates of students who enroll as full-time first-time freshmen
in the state’s 4-year public and private colleges and universities. This
category also reports the persistence rates from first to second years. Last,
this category looks at the overall rate of degrees awarded compared to students
enrolled. The
concepts expressed are the following: ·
Persistence ·
Completion · Degree
Production Indicators,
Clusters and Weights Indicator/
Cluster Weight Persistence 20% 1st
year community college students returning their 2nd
year 10% Freshmen
at 4-year colleges/universities returning their sophomore
year 10% Completion 80% First-time,
full-time students completing a bachelor’s degree within 5
years 30% All
degree completion at all colleges and universities per 100 undergraduate
students 50%
COMPLETION
PERSISTENCE:
1st
year community college students returning their 2nd year
Using
data from the ACT national survey of 3,219 postsecondary institutions, this
indicator calculates a state-weighted mean rate of first to second year
persistence for students enrolled in a technical or community college. The
weighted mean rate for states is based on the total first-time full-time student
enrollment of responding institutions.
Notes
Since
part-time students are not included in the calculations, persistence rates for
states with high part-time student enrollment may be overestimated. Furthermore,
the data are reported at the institution level and do not track student
transfer. For this reason, the persistence rate may underestimate system-wide
persistence if students transfer from one public institution to another in the
same state.
Data
can be reported reliably for 41 states for the two-year college measure. States
for which data are unavailable: Alaska, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska,
North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Vermont.
PERSISTENCE:
Freshmen
at 4-year colleges/ universities returning their sophomore year
Source:
ACT.
Institutional Data Questionnaire
(Unpublished analyses conducted by ACT). Iowa City: ACT,
1999.
Using
data from the ACT national survey of 3,219 postsecondary institutions, this
indicator calculates a state-weighted mean rate of first to second year
persistence for students enrolled in a public or private four-year institution.
The weighted mean rate for states is based on the total first-time full-time
student enrollment of responding institutions.
Notes
Similar
to the measure of students returning at 2-year institutions, part-time students
are not included in the calculations. Therefore, persistence rates for states
with high part-time student enrollment may be overestimated, and this measure
may underestimate system-wide persistence if students transfer from one public
institution to another in the same state.
Data
Availability
Data
can be reported reliably for 48 states for the 4-year measure. States for which
data are unavailable: Alaska and Wyoming.
Completion:
Source:
ACT.
Institutional Data Questionnaire
(Unpublished analyses conducted by ACT). Iowa City: ACT, 1999.
Using
data from a national survey of 3,219 postsecondary institutions, this indicator
measures the 5-year baccalaureate degree completion rate for students enrolled
in 4-year institutions. The weighted mean rate used in the report card is based
on the total first-time full-time student enrollment at responding institutions.
Notes
Part-time,
transfer or returning students are not included in the calculations.
Data
Availability
Data
can be reported reliably for 48 states for this measure. States for which data
are unavailable: Alaska and Wyoming.
Source:
Degrees
and Certificates:
National Center for Education Statistics. Completion Survey, 1997–1998 (Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics, 1999. Special tabulations provided by Pinkerton Computer
Consultants, 2000.
Enrollment:
National Center for Education Statistics. Fall Enrollment Survey 1997 (Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics, 1999. Special tabulations provided by Pinkerton Computer
Consultants, 2000.
This
indicator uses the following calculation:
Numerator:
Total number of associate degrees, baccalaureate degrees, certificates and
diplomas awarded throughout the 1997-98 academic year.
Denominator:
Full- and part-time undergraduate enrollment in fall, 1997.
Notes
This
measure is not a cohort statistic. However, since associates and baccalaureate
degrees are totaled, this indicator does capture student transfer from one
institution to another and from a 2-year to a 4-year institution.
Data
Availability
Data
are available for all 50 states.
filka
BENEFITS
In exchange for its investment in higher education, a state expects a more
productive labor force, a more informed electorate and a better functioning
society. In addition to these public benefits, the state can expect that a more
highly educated citizenry should reap private benefits such as higher lifetime
earnings.
Specifically,
this category considers the states’ human capital investments in relation to
four critical concepts:
· Educational
Achievement
· Economic
Benefits
· Civic
Benefits
· Adult Skill
Levels
Due
to data limitations, geographic and demographic factors that may impact the
returns on a state’s education investment are not considered in this
category.
Indicators,
Clusters and Weights
|
Indicator/ Cluster |
Weight |
|
Educational
Achievement |
30% |
|
Population aged 25
to 65 with bachelor’s degrees or higher |
30% |
|
Economic Benefits |
25% |
|
Increased income
from education |
25% |
|
Civic Benefits |
25% |
|
Eligible residents
voting in 1996 and 1998 national elections |
12.5% |
|
Those declaring
charitable contributions |
12.5% |
|
Adult Skill Levels |
20% |
|
Quantitative
literacy |
6.7% |
|
Prose literacy |
6.7% |
|
Document literacy |
6.6% |
EDUCATIONAL
ACHIEVEMENT:
Population
aged 25 to 65 with bachelor’s degree or higher
Source:
U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey, October 1996,
1997 and 1998 Supplements. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999. State-level
analysis provided by Pinkerton Computer Consultants, 2000.
This
measure assesses the educational attainment of the working-age population:
Numerator:
Number of adults aged 25 to 65 with at least a baccalaureate
degree.
Denominator:
Number of adults aged 25 to 65 in the state’s population.
Notes
This
indicator averages three years of the most current data, 1996-1998, to account
for aberrations in any single year of data. This indicator does not control for
interstate migration. State scores may be higher due to the number of bachelor’s
degree holders who have migrated from other states.
Data
Availability
Because
three years of data are aggregated and averaged, data providing overall
population estimates can be reliably reported for each of the 50 states.
ECONOMIC
BENEFITS:
Sources:
Median
earnings:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey, March 1996, 1997
and 1998 Supplements. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999. State-level
analysis provided by Pinkerton Computer Consultants, 2000.
Total
population with bachelor’s degree or higher:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey, October 1996,
1997 and 1998 Supplements. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999. State-level
analysis provided by Pinkerton Computer Consultants, 2000.
Total
personal income:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. State Personal Income, Annual and Quarterly,
for All States and Regions, 1998. Washington, DC: Bureau of Economic
Analysis, 1998.
Statewide
economic benefit reflects the average net contribution of baccalaureate degree
holders relative to total personal income. This indicator is measured with a
three-step mathematical formula. Principally, this measure calculates the
difference in the median earnings between adults whose highest level of
education is a high school credential and adults with at least a baccalaureate
degree. This differential is then multiplied by the number of adults in the
state with 4-year college degrees. The third step divides this product by total
personal income in the state. The following formula is
used:
Numerator:
Median earnings of population aged 25 to 65 with at least a baccalaureate degree
less median earnings of population aged 25 to 65 with no more than a high school
credential, multiplied by the number of adults aged 25 to 65 with at least a
baccalaureate degree.
Denominator:
Total personal income in the state.
Notes
Personal income is the sum of net earnings adjusted by place of residence, rental income of persons, personal dividend income, personal interest income and transfer payments. It is measured before the deduction of personal income taxes and other personal taxes and is reported in current dollars (no adjustment is made for price changes). Total personal income is the personal income received by all residents of a state from participation in production, government and business transfer payments, and accumulated government interest.
Earnings of adults who are unemployed or not in the labor force but who have minimal annual earnings are included in the calculation of this measure.
Data Availability
This
indicator averages three years of the most current data, 1996 to 1998, to
obtain a large enough sample size to make reliable state estimates and to
account for aberrations in any single year of data. Data are available for each
of the 50 states.
CIVIC
BENEFITS:
Source:
U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey, 1997, November
Voting and Registration Supplement 1996, 1998. Washington, DC: Census
Bureau, 1999.
Numerator:
Number of voters in November 1996 and 1998 elections.
Denominator:
Total eligible voting population.
Notes
Votes
cast in local, state and federal races are included. Due to data limitations,
this indicator does not disaggregate the voting rates of citizens by level of
educational attainment. National studies have shown that voting rates increase
with higher levels of educational attainment. This measure is included as a
proxy for the civic returns a state enjoys as a result of its more highly
educated population.
Data
Availability
Data
are available for all 50 states.
CIVIC
BENEFITS:
Source: U.S. Department
of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. Statistics of Income for Tax
Year 1998, Annual State Tax Reports. Washington
DC: Internal Revenue Service, 1999.
The
charitable giving rate is the number of charitable contributions made by all
those tax filers who itemized their tax returns during the 1998 tax
year.
Numerator:
Number of tax filers itemizing charitable contributions on their 1998 federal
tax return.
Denominator:
Number of state residents filing an itemized federal tax return in 1998.
Notes
By
monitoring the number of donors, rather than the dollar amount donated, this
indicator captures the prevalence of philanthropy among income earners and tax
filers in the state. The number of donors in the state serves as a proxy for the
citizenry’s local and regional dollar commitments to public welfare.
Due
to data limitations, this indicator does not disaggregate the charitable giving
rates of citizens by level of educational attainment. Annual analyses by the
Washington, D.C.-based Independent Sector correlate income to volunteering and
describe a direct relationship between educational attainment and charitable
giving.
The
indicator may favor states with wealthier populations because only those
donations large enough to meet tax-deductible criteria are reported.
Data
Availability
Data
are available for all 50 states.
ADULT SKILL
LEVELS:
Source: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1994. Collecting
agency: Educational Testing Service. Special analysis for non-oversample states
by Stephen Reder, Portland State University.
This
indicator measures the percent of the states’ populations whose literacy skills
are most similar to the skills of college graduates (level 4 or higher on a
scale of 1–5 on the National Adult Literacy Survey, NALS.
Quantitative
literacy measures the knowledge and skills required to apply arithmetic
operations, either alone or sequentially, using numbers embedded in printed
materials. Adults with the highest measured level of quantitative literacy,
level 5, can perform multiple arithmetic operations sequentially, and can make
inferences about the appropriate operation to perform without prompting from the
text.
Notes
Due
to data limitations, this indicator does not disaggregate the literacy rates of
citizens by level of educational attainment. Nevertheless, national studies have
shown that literacy is attained through, and associated with, higher levels of
educational attainment.
Data
Availability
11
states participated in an oversample of the NALS Survey. For some states not
participating in the oversample, estimates could be calculated using
multivariate regression technique. Multivariate modeling relied on 1990 Census
data to predict literacy levels given demographic and economic data. These
results were compared with jackknife estimations of the NALS sample using the 60
replicate weights provided by NALS, and were found to be fairly predictive.
As
a result of these efforts, data are available for a total of 28 states. States
for which data are missing: Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky,
Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming.
ADULT
SKILL LEVELS:
Adults
demonstrating high-level prose literacy skills
Source: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1994. Collecting
agency: Educational Testing Service. Special analysis for non-oversample states
by Stephen Reder, Portland State University.
This
indicator measures the percent of the states’ populations whose literacy skills
are most similar to the skills of college graduates (level 4 or higher on a
scale of 1–5 on the National Adult Literacy Survey, NALS.
Prose
literacy measures the knowledge and skills needed to understand and use
information from texts that include editorials, news stories, poems and fiction.
Adults with the highest measured level of prose literacy, level 5, can find
information in dense test with considerable distracting information that might
seem plausible but is incorrect.
Notes
Due
to data limitations, this indicator does not disaggregate the literacy rates of
citizens by level of educational attainment. Nevertheless, national studies have
shown that literacy is attained through, and associated with, higher levels of
educational attainment.
Data
Availability
11
states participated in an oversample of the NALS Survey. For some states not
participating in the oversample, estimates could be calculated using
multivariate regression technique. Multivariate modeling relied on 1990 Census
data to predict literacy levels given demographic and economic data. These
results were compared with jackknife estimations of the NALS sample using the 60
replicate weights provided by NALS, and were found to be fairly predictive.
As
a result of these efforts, data are available for a total of 28 states. States
for which data are missing: Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky,
Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming.
ADULT
SKILL LEVELS:
Source: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1994. Collecting
agency: Educational Testing Service. Special analysis for non-oversample states
by Stephen Reder, Portland State University.
This
indicator measures the percent of the states’ populations whose literacy skills
are most similar to the skills of college graduates (level 4 or higher on a
scale of 1–5 on the National Adult Literacy Survey, NALS.
Document
literacy measures the knowledge and skills required to locate and use
information contained in materials that include job applications, payroll forms,
transportation schedules, maps, tables and graphs. Adults with this highest
measured level of document literacy, level 5, can use complex documents
containing the distracting information and make high-level
inferences.
Notes
Due
to data limitations, this indicator does not disaggregate the literacy rates of
citizens by level of educational attainment. Nevertheless, national studies have
shown that literacy is attained through, and associated with, higher levels of
educational attainment.
Data
Availability
11
states participated in an oversample of the NALS Survey. For some states not
participating in the oversample, estimates could be calculated using
multivariate regression technique. Multivariate modeling relied on 1990 Census
data to predict literacy levels given demographic and economic data. These
results were compared with jackknife estimations of the NALS sample using the 60
replicate weights provided by NALS, and were found to be fairly predictive.
As
a result of these efforts, data are available for a total of 28 states. States
for which data are missing: Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky,
Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming.
How much and what students learn in college is perhaps the most important criterion for measuring success in higher education. Despite assessment activities in many states, however, there are currently no common benchmarks for student learning that would allow meaningful state-to-state comparisons. For information about assessment efforts in the states, see Assessing Student Learning Outcomes: A Supplement to Measuring Up 2000, by Peter Ewell, available at www.highereducation.org.
PERFORMANCE GAPS
This non-graded
information measures various components of performance gaps for six indicators
presented in Measuring Up 2000. The
following list details the indicators and the performance gap data for which
data are available.
Ethnicity Gap
Family Income Gap
Parental Education Gap
Math Course Taking
By Ethnicity
Science Course Taking
By Ethnicity
Math Proficiency
Family Income Gap
Parental Education Gap
Young Adult Enrollment
Gender Gap
Ethnicity Gap
Family Income Gap
Parental Education Gap
Ethnicity Gap
An
additional measure is also useful to monitor equity gaps. This indicator is not
captured in other sections of the report card:
NET
LOSS REVENUE
This
measures the annual loss in earnings and annual tax loss revenue due to the
earnings gaps between minorities and non-Hispanic whites with equal levels of
educational attainment. The loss of earnings is also measured relative to total
personal income.
Sources:
Population
and Earnings: U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey, Annual
Demographic File, 1997–1999. DC: Bureau of the Census, 1999. Calculations by
David W. Wright, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Wichita State
University, Wichita, Kansas.
Total
Personal Income: U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. State Personal Income, Annual and Quarterly,
for all States and Regions, 1998. Washington, DC: Bureau of Economic
Analysis, 1998.
CHANGE
OVER TIME
For the most part, Measuring Up 2000 provides a snapshot of state performance that does not consider changes in performance over time. This additional non-graded category complements the graded section by providing states with a means for measuring progress over specific periods.
Although time series data are not available for all performance indicators in the report card, change data for the following five indicators are available:
High School Credential1985–1987 v. 1996–1998
Source,
1985-87:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey, October 1985,
1986 and 1987 Supplements. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999. Special
tabulation by Pinkerton Computer Consultants.
1990 v. 1998
Source,
1990:
Council of Chief State School Officers. State Indicators of Science and Mathematics
Education: 1999. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers,
1999, p.22.
1990 v. 1998
Source,
1990:
Council of Chief State School Officers. State Indicators of Science and Mathematics
Education: 1999. Washington, DC:
Council of Chief State School Officers, 1999, p.22.
Young Adult Enrollment
Adults with Bachelor’s
Degrees or Higher
1985–87 v. 1996–1998
Source, 1985-87: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey, October 1985, 1986 and 1987 Supplements. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999. State-level analysis provided by Pinkerton Computer Consultants.
Population
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. State Population Estimates, 1998. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999.
Gross State Product
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Gross State Product for States. Washington, DC: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1999.
This category contains seven indicators that provide demographic, higher education and state spending information related to state performance in higher education.
· Projected Change in Population 2000-2015
· Projected Change in Number of High School Graduates 1999-2010
· Projected Budget Surplus/Shortfall 2000-2008
· Gross State
· Average Income of Poorest 20% of Population
· Children in Poverty (1995)
· Percent of Population with less than High School Diploma
· New Economy Index
Source:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
“Population Projections for States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1995
to 2025.” Paper #47. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, 1998.
Projected % Change in Number of All High
School Graduates 1999-2000
Source: Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education, Knocking at the College Door. Denver: Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education, 1998.
Projected Budget Surplus/Shortfall 2000-2008Source: Hovey,
Harold. State Spending for Higher
Education. San Jose: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education,
1999.
Average Income of Poorest 20% of
Population
Source:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey, March 1996, 1997 and 1998 Supplements. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999. State-level
analysis provided by Pinkerton Computer Consultants.
Children in Poverty (1995)
Source: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Kids Count Data Book. Washington, DC: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1999.
Percent of Population with Less Than High School
Diploma
Source: U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey, October
Supplement, 1998. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999.
New Economy Index
Source: Progressive Policy Institute. State New Economy Index. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute, 1999.
The New Economy Index measures 17 components of adaptation to and innovation within a technologically-advanced economy. Reported as a single indicator in this category, the measure conveys the degree to which states conform to the principles of the new economy.
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 1999. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2000.
State and Local Appropriations for Higher EducationSource: Palmer, James, ed. Grapevine: A National Database of Tax Support for Higher Education, 1999. Normal: Illinois State University, 1999, Table 10.
PUBLIC SATISFACTION/
EMPLOYER SATISFACTION
Public Satisfaction
Source: Public Agenda. 50-State Survey Conducted for the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2000. San Jose: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2000.
Employer Satisfaction
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. National Employer Survey, 1997. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1997. State-level analysis provided by Institute for Research in Higher Education, 1999.
SHARE OF STATE APPROPRIATIONS
Budget Breakdown
Source: National
Association of State Budget Officers. State Expenditure Report, 1991, 1999. Denver: National Association
of State Budget Officers, 1992, 2000.
State Population
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, State Population Estimates, 1998. Washington, DC: Census Bureau, 1999.
Students Enrolled in Higher Education
Source: National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics, 1999. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2000, p. 239.
The
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education works to strengthen
America’s future by increasing opportunity and achievement for all who aspire to
higher education. As an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, the
National Center promotes public policies that enhance Americans’ opportunities
to pursue and achieve high-quality education and training beyond high school.
Formed in 1998, the National Center is not affiliated with any institution of
higher education, with any political party, or with any government agency. It is
supported by a consortium of national foundations that includes The Pew
Charitable Trusts and The Ford Foundation.
The National Center publishes:
«Reports and
analyses commissioned by the National Center,
«Reports and
analyses written by National Center staff,
«National Center Policy Reports that are
approved for release by the National Center’s Board of Directors, and
«CrossTalk, a quarterly publication.
Each of the publications below is available at www.highereducation.org.
Single copies of most of these publications are also available from the San Jose
office of the National Center. Please FAX requests to 408-271-2697 and ask for
the report by publication number. Measuring Up 2000 is available by
calling 888-269-3652; single copies are $25.00.
San Jose
Office: 152 North Third Street, Suite
705, San Jose, California 95112
Telephone: 408-271-2699 •
FAX: 408-271-2697
Email: center@highereducation.org •
Web site: www.highereducation.org
Washington
Office: 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW,
Suite 310, Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: 202-822-6720 •
FAX: 202-822-6730
Reports and Analyses Published by the
National Center
98-1 Concept Paper: A National Center to Address
Higher Education Policy, by Patrick M. Callan (March 1998).
98-2 The Price of Admission: The Growing
Importance of Higher Education, by John Immerwahr (Spring 1998). A national
survey of Americans’ views on higher education, conducted and reported by Public
Agenda.
98-3
Organizing for Learning: The View from the Governor’s
Office, by James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
of North Carolina and Chair of the National Center (June 1998). An address to
the American Association for Higher Education concerning opportunity in higher
education.
98-4
Tidal Wave II Revisited: A Review of Earlier Enrollment
Projections for California Higher Education, by Gerald C. Hayward, David W. Breneman and Leobardo
F. Estrada (September 1998). Finds that earlier forecasts of a surge in higher
education enrollments were accurate.
98-5
The Challenges Facing California Higher Education: A
Memorandum to the Next Governor of California, by David W. Breneman (September 1998).
98-6
Federal Tuition Tax Credits and State Higher Education
Policy: A Guide for State Policy Makers, by Kristin D. Conklin (December 1998). Examines the
implications of the new federal income tax provisions on students and their
families.
98-7
Higher Education Governance: Balancing Institutional and
Market Influences, by Richard C.
Richardson, Jr., Kathy Reeves Bracco, Patrick M. Callan, and Joni E. Finney
(November 1998). Describes the structural relationships that affect
institutional efficacy in higher education, and argues that effective state
policy achieves a balance between institutional and market forces.
98-8
The Challenges and Opportunities Facing Higher
Education: An Agenda for Policy Research, by Dennis Jones, Peter Ewell, and Aims McGuinness
(December 1998). Argues that due to substantial changes in the landscape of
postsecondary education, new state-level policy frameworks must be developed and
implemented.
99-1 Taking Responsibility: Leaders’ Expectations
of Higher Education, by John Immerwahr (January 1999). Reports the views of
those most involved with decision-making about higher education, based on a
survey and focus groups conducted by Public Agenda.
99-2 South Dakota: Developing Policy-Driven
Change in Higher Education, by Mario Martinez (June 1999). Describes the
processes for change in higher education that government, business and higher
education leaders are creating and implementing in South Dakota.
99-3 State Spending for Higher Education in the
Next Decade: The Battle to Sustain Current Support, by Harold A. Hovey (July
1999). This fiscal forecast of state and local spending patterns finds that the
vast majority of states will face significant fiscal deficits over the next
eight years.
00-1 A State-by-State Report Card on Higher
Education: Prospectus (March 2000). Describes the National Center’s
forthcoming state-by-state report card on higher education.
00-2 Great Expectations: How the Public and
Parents—White, African American and Hispanic—View Higher Education, by John
Immerwahr with Tony Foleno (May 2000). This report by Public Agenda finds that
Americans overwhelmingly see higher education as essential for success. Survey
results are also available for the following states:
00-2b Great Expectations: How Pennsylvanians
View Higher Education (May 2000).
00-2c Great Expectations: How Floridians View
Higher Education (August 2000).
00-2d Great Expectations: How Coloradans View
Higher Education (August 2000).
00-2e Great Expectations: How Californians
View Higher Education (August 2000).
00-2f Great Expectations: How New Yorkers View
Higher Education (October 2000).
00-2h Great Expectations: How Illinois
Residents View Higher Education (October 2000).
00-3
Measuring Up 2000: The State-by-State Report
Card for Higher Education (November 2000). This first-of-its-kind report
card grades each state on its performance in higher education. The report card
also provides comprehensive profiles of each state and brief states-at-a-glance
comparisons. Single copies are available for $25.00 by calling 888-269-3652.
00-4 Technical Guide Documenting Methodology,
Indicators and Data Sources for Measuring Up 2000 (November 2000).
00-5 Assessing Student Learning Outcomes: A
Supplement to Measuring Up 2000, by Peter Ewell and Paula Ries (December
2000). National survey of state efforts to assess student learning outcomes in
higher education.