Search

Entering the middle of the 21st Century, Texas has the ninth-largest economy in the world, whose success is powered by the increasingly educated workforce. Texans have earned more degrees, certificates, and credentials over the past decade than at any time in history, and Texas has outpaced every other state in growing undergraduate and graduate student enrollment. But the economy is always changing. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated trends that were already underway in how Texans learn, work, connect, and use technology. And, now more than ever before, a growing number of jobs require credentials beyond high school diplomas. To meet these challenges, Texas institutions of higher education must expand opportunities for all Texans to earn degrees, certificates, and other credentials. More specifically, the state must lead the nation in awarding credentials of value that offer purpose in the economy, value in the labor market, and opportunities for good jobs and meaningful careers. The plan will focus on three measurable, data-driven goals: (1) Attainment of Postsecondary Credentials; (2) Postsecondary Credentials of Value; and (3) Research, Development, and Innovation. In the plan, equity will be embedded throughout the goals. All goals will be tied to metrics that are publicly available for students and families, colleges and universities, employers, and policymakers to use in making decisions. These goals can only be achieved collaboratively, working with public and private sector stakeholders to break down historic silos and serving as a resource, partner, and advocate for Texas higher education.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, public colleges and universities have prioritized the health and safety of students, faculty, staff and visitors while continuing to offer an exceptional, affordable learning environment. Public higher education has been agile and responsive. In March 2020, the state system institutions transitioned more than 173,000 students from in-person instruction to alternative or online instruction, with limited exceptions for certain labs and practicums. These institutions added over 4,800 more nurses, doctors and other credentialed allied health professionals to the state's health care workforce during the COVID-19 crisis in spring 2020. This annual report reflects significant progress as a state system, continued commitment to excellence and innovation, and strong partnerships with common education, CareerTech, and the business community to meet Oklahoma's workforce needs. No other entity in state government drives economic growth and strengthens workforce development as directly and comprehensively as public higher education. There is no better investment to move Oklahoma forward in this dynamic, global economy. The following contents are included in this annual report: (1) Role of the State Regents; (2) Higher Education Update; (3) Strategic Direction; (4) Higher Education in Oklahoma; (5) Academics; (6) Financial Aid; (7) Student Preparation; (8) Economic Development; (9) Fiscal; (10) Institutional Highlights; and (11) Administrative Organization. [For the 2019 report, see ED609065.]

The most significant investment California made in the 1960s was the creation of, arguably, the best public higher education system in the world. The 1965 Master Plan for Higher Education created a three-tiered system of higher education that provided a place in college for any Californian seeking the opportunity. From research universities to accessible four-year public state universities and community colleges, the Master Plan for Higher Education catapulted California into world leadership in gross domestic product such that today, the state is the 5th largest economy in the world. While revolutionary for its time, the design of the Master Plan no longer reflects the economic and workforce demands of the state and has led to uneven degree attainment and income inequality across the state. Today, California needs additional college graduates and a more ambitious Master Plan to help us meet the economic imperatives of the next decade. If California is to remain competitive, maintain an economic standing as the fifth largest economy in the world, and meet workforce demand, the state must ensure that college preparation and opportunity are provided in a more equitable way, and we must close racial/ethnic gaps in college attainment while ensuring that 60 percent of residents in every racial/ethnic group hold a college credential by 2030. If we do not take action, by 2030, we estimate only 32.5 percent of the state's Latinx workforce will have a degree or high-value credential. This is barely half of the 60 percent goal articulated above. Ensuring that at least 60 percent of the state's workforce holds a college credential, and that at least 60 percent of the state's Latinx, Black, and American Indian/Alaska Native residents hold a college credential will generate an additional 2.5 million credentials over the coming decade. Moving from a 32.5 percent college attainment rate among Latinx Californians in the workforce to a 60 percent college attainment would result in 1.26 million additional Bachelor's degrees and 1.16 million additional Associate's degrees and certificates for the state's Latinx residents alone. [Written with contributions from Michele Siqueiros.]

Spring 2020 marked the onset of one of the most tumultuous eras in recent memory. The rapid spread of COVID-19 wreaked havoc on communities across the globe, and in the U.S., the epicenter of the outbreak was located in Washington State. Beyond the immediate concerns around personal health and safety, COVID-19 produced a host of other issues that caused significant disruption in all areas of life. States shut down their economies to curb the spread of the disease, booting millions of Americans from the labor force and onto unemployment insurance. This abrupt and comprehensive shutdown differed from any event in recent history, leaving many unknowns as we look towards recovery. How well this crisis is responded to hinges on the ability to anticipate the impact, mitigate the negative consequences, and bolster areas that will aid in recovery. One way to do that is to learn from history. Using a prior significant economic downturn, the Great Recession, as an example, the authors will examine the effects of the great recession on higher education and the labor market, drawing lessons about resilience and recovery. This report will begin by examining the effects of the 2008 Great Recession on higher education and the labor market and the ensuing economic recovery. The authors then present observations from the growing body of evidence around student and workers' experiences during the current crisis, highlighting COVID-19's disproportionate impact on marginalized populations. Finally, the authors discuss priority areas for addressing educational inequities and economic challenges exacerbated by the pandemic. Ultimately, it is the hope that this report serves as a guide to policymakers and leaders in higher education in determining strategic priorities and paths towards recovery during these unprecedented times. [For the executive summary, see ED613310.]

COVID-19 and the response to the pandemic in Oklahoma and the nation mark this as an unprecedented time in American history. Oklahoma's state system of higher education has responded to the challenges created with flexibility and innovation, transitioning more than 173,000 students to virtual, online, and alternative course delivery formats for the last half of the spring 2020 semester and for many of the public colleges and universities into the summer session, to continue to protect students, faculty, staff and visitors. This annual report reflects significant progress as a state system, ongoing commitment to excellence and innovation, and a strong partnerships within the education sector and with the business community to meet Oklahoma's evolving workforce needs. In this unprecedented fiscal climate, Oklahoma will continue to make the case that higher education is the best investment policy leaders can make to strengthen the state's economy and position Oklahoma as a top 10 state. The following contents are included in this annual report: (1) Role of the State Regents; (2) Higher Education Update; (3) Strategic Direction; (4) Higher Education in Oklahoma; (5) Academics; (6) Financial Aid; (7) Student Preparation; (8) Economic Development; (9) Fiscal; and (10) Institutional Highlights; and (11) Administrative Organization. [For the 2018 report, see ED600316.]

College plays a critical role in providing opportunities for economic mobility, yet degree attainment by race is inequitable. Currently, more than half of young white adults hold at least a two-year college degree, compared to 37 percent of Black young adults. Less than a third of Hispanic, American Indian, and Hawaiian or Pacific Islander young adults have at least a two-year college degree. Underrepresented students of color disproportionately attend public colleges and universities that have less money to spend supporting them, and where success rates are low. Community colleges serve the highest shares of underrepresented students of color and have just a fraction of the state support and tuition revenue available to other colleges. This report examines how changes in core education revenue (state and local appropriations, and tuition) between 2006 and 2016 -- the years during and following the Great Recession -- impact disparities in resources across public colleges and universities and the underrepresented students of color who enroll in them. [This report received key project support from Debbie Cochrane and Veronica Gonzalez.]

The Oklahoma State Regents remain completely committed to maintaining the accessibility and affordability of public higher education for all Oklahomans and increasing the number of college graduates to provide the educated workforce our state requires to be competitive in a dynamic, global economy. This annual report reflects the significant progress of the state system of higher education and the commitment to accessibility, affordability, academic quality and increased degree completion. [For "Degrees of Progress: The State of Higher Education in Oklahoma. 2017 Annual Report," see ED591040.]

The COVID-19 crisis has upended life in the United States, extending well beyond health and safety concerns. Millions of Americans have faced financial instability as states have shut down their economies to curb the spread of the virus. As the COVID-19 crisis continues to unfold, drawing lessons from history on resilience and recovery can inform a proactive response that improves the economic future and wellbeing of all people in Washington State. While this crisis is not the first one encountered, the nature and magnitude differ from the most recent precedent, the 2008 Great Recession. In previous recessions, the economy's downturn led to surges in higher education enrollment as people looked to improve their prospects for the future. But the COVID-19 crisis is different from past recessions. The massive shift to online learning in the spring left many students dissatisfied, and uncertainty around campus operations for the coming academic year may deter students from continuing their education. Many families are facing immense financial strain that may limit their ability to afford college. The pandemic also has the potential to exacerbate inequities in higher education enrollment, persistence, and completion, as students of color endure disproportionate health, financial, and academic hardships caused by COVID-19. Strengthening the higher education system and ensuring accessibility and effectiveness for all Washington residents is key to a strong recovery from the COVID-19 crisis. This executive summary presents a brief overview of priorities and promising practices, described in further detail in the full report (Kwakye and Kibort-Crocker, 2020). [For the full report, see ED613307.]

Higher education is the state's road to jobs and prosperity. No entity in state government can help Oklahoma reach its goals of educational excellence and workforce development faster or more comprehensively than public higher education. More college graduates means an increase in our state's per capita income and a stronger state economy. This annual report looks at higher education in Oklahoma today and includes profiles of Oklahoma's 25 colleges and universities.

Education is closely linked with economic outcomes. This report highlights key trends in educational attainment among rural Americans and the relationship between educational attainment and economic prosperity for rural people and places. Rural Americans are increasingly educated, but gains in educational attainment vary across demographic groups. Rural women are increasingly more highly educated than rural men, and educational attainment among rural Whites is higher than that of racial and ethnic minorities in rural areas. Compared with urban areas, rural areas are lagging in the share of adults with college degrees. Urban areas continue to offer employment and earnings advantages (relative to rural areas) for workers with college degrees. For rural counties, low educational attainment is closely related to higher poverty and child poverty rates as well as higher unemployment rates.

This study estimated the economic penalty that immigrant underemployment imposes, both in forgone earnings and tax payments, using U.S. Census Bureau data to analyze demographic characteristics and estimate the forgone earnings and taxes at federal, state, and local levels. It focuses on three groups of workers: (1) Immigrants who are foreign-educated college graduates; (2) Immigrants who are U.S.-educated college graduates; and (3) U.S.-born college graduates. The research produces findings nationally, as well as for seven states that include a mix of traditional immigrant destinations (California, Florida, New York, and Texas), a relatively new destination state (Washington), and two industrial states that have recently sought to attract skilled immigrants (Michigan and Ohio). Findings indicate that the underemployment of immigrant college graduates results in tens of billions of dollars in forgone earnings and taxes annually, which in turn affects our economy at every level by lowering productivity and consumer demand. Given that skills and education degrade over time if not put to productive use, brain waste can also have long-term detrimental effects on foreign-born workers. Highly skilled immigrants who cannot fully utilize their skills are less likely to earn family-sustaining wages and achieve financial stability for themselves and their families. Finding a way to tap underutilized skills would have a positive impact on national and local economies. [For the full report, see ED586143.]

This study estimated the economic penalty that immigrant underemployment imposes, both in forgone earnings and tax payments, using U.S. Census Bureau data to analyze demographic characteristics and estimate the forgone earnings and taxes at federal, state, and local levels. It focuses on three groups of workers: (1) Immigrants who are foreign-educated college graduates; (2) Immigrants who are U.S.-educated college graduates; and (3) U.S.-born college graduates. The research produces findings nationally, as well as for seven states that include a mix of traditional immigrant destinations (California, Florida, New York, and Texas), a relatively new destination state (Washington), and two industrial states that have recently sought to attract skilled immigrants (Michigan and Ohio). Findings indicate that the underemployment of immigrant college graduates results in tens of billions of dollars in forgone earnings and taxes annually, which in turn affects our economy at every level by lowering productivity and consumer demand. Given that skills and education degrade over time if not put to productive use, brain waste can also have long-term detrimental effects on foreign-born workers. Highly skilled immigrants who cannot fully utilize their skills are less likely to earn family-sustaining wages and achieve financial stability for themselves and their families. Finding a way to tap underutilized skills would have a positive impact on national and local economies. [For the report in brief, see ED586142.]

This document addresses the status of equality in access to higher education. Some of the motivating factors behind this presentation include: (1) College completion rates including rates of bachelor's degree completion are falling today, particularly among young Americans; (2) Reversing the current trend and increasing college completion has become an imperative at all levels of American government; (3) The possibility of limiting or redirecting federal need-based grant aid, which could prove counterproductive; and (4) The belief that America's 2020 goals cannot be met without increases in need-based grant aid from all sources. In this presentation, the Advisory Committee addresses the following questions: How Unequal is Access to College and Why?, How Unaffordable is College--And For Whom?, How are Access and Persistence Related?, What Implications Can Be Drawn For the Future?, and What are ACSFA Findings and Recommendations? The analyses uses data from five National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports: (1) The National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988; (2) The Education Longitudinal Study of 2002; (3) The Beginning Postsecondary Students; (4) The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study; and (5) The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems.

Overskilling is the phenomenon whereby a worker's skills are underutilised in his or her job. Overskilled workers are employed, but they are underutilised and mismatched, in that their skills and abilities are not a good match with the requirements of the job. Overskilling can lead to decreased wages and job satisfaction, which suggests that the investment in skills for that individual has been somewhat wasted. Overskilling mismatch has been shown to be persistent; that is, present overskilling mismatch increases the probability of future overskilling mismatch. However, the previous research showing this extends back only one year. This report examines the persistence of mismatch over a longer (up to three years) time period and its effect on wages. An obvious explanation for the persistence of overskilling is that it reflects personal unobserved characteristics (such as the person having an inflated view of their own skills). This paper exploits longitudinal data to show that persistence is more than this, with the probability of being overskilled increasing if the individual has been overskilled in the previous period, after allowing for unobserved characteristics. Key findings include: (1) Overskilling is persistent: overskilling mismatch is common among those who have been overskilled in the past. Persistence varies by educational level, with its being lowest among university graduates and highest among VET diploma graduates and those who did not finish high school; and (2) The wages of university graduates are reduced by past overskilling, more so than for any other education level. A possible reason for the second finding is that graduates tend to be in better-paid jobs and therefore there is more at stake for them. This observation is supported by the results of quantile regressions, which differentiate the impact of overskilling by whether an individual is at the top or the bottom of the earnings distribution. With the exception of certificate III and IV graduates, workers who are better paid among their peers are more likely to suffer higher wage penalties from being overskilled. Appended are: (1) Definition of variables; and (2) Estimation of individuals' probability of being overskilled in their current job and the effect of state dependence. (Contains 15 tables, 6 figures, 1 box and 10 footnotes.)

You would not buy a car without knowing its mileage, or a home without knowing its age and condition. Why would you invest in a college education without knowing graduation rates? Over the next several months, high school seniors across the country will decide where to go to college. Many students and their parents will base the decision on program offerings, cost, and distance from home, but they may be overlooking a vital piece of information. A recent study of parents choosing between two public colleges found that, when provided with graduation-rate data, 15 percent switched their preference to the school with the higher graduation rate. The information effects were pronounced among less-advantaged parents and those less informed about the college application process. Providing this key information could have real economic implications for students' lifetime earning potential. This "Outlook" presents the findings of the study and proposes policies to improve consumer information and increase college completion. (Contains 4 figures and 15 notes.)

Complete College America and FutureWorks conducted an analysis of certificate production, the value of the certificate program, and the economic benefit it provides to the region and nation. The conclusion, based on labor market demand and both personal and economic returns, is that certificates count and the policy and trends around certificates deserve closer examination. This report is a follow-up that focuses on certificate production across the states and serves to answer some of the important questions raised in the first iteration: (1) What trends can we observe in certificate production?; (2) Are there different state factors driving results?; and (3) What are the policy implications of a state's certificate production? To answer these questions, this analysis presents an overview of certificate production in the United States, the types of certificates driving production, and a comparison to overall completion production in the states. The overall goal of this report is to create a context for state policy discussion and stimulate challenging questions about completion data and certificate production. Appended are: (1) 2008 FTE, Certificates, and Associates Degrees and 10 Year Growth, 1998-2008 (Public Associates Institutions); and (2) Carnegie 2005 Classification and Groupings. (Contains 1 figure, 9 tables, and 6 footnotes.)

There is growing evidence that students throughout the world no longer see the US as the primary place to study; that in some form this correlates with a rise in perceived quality and prestige in the EU and elsewhere; and further, that this may mean a continued decline in the US's market share of international students. There clearly are a complex set of variables that will influence international education and global labor markets, including the current global economic recession. Ultimately, however, we think these factors will not alter the fundamental dynamics of the new global market, which include these facts: the international flow of talent, scientific or otherwise, is being fundamentally altered as nations invest more in educational attainment and human capital; the US will continue to lose some of its market share over time--the only question is how quickly and by how much; and without a proactive strategy, nations such as the US that are highly dependent on global in-migration of talented students and professionals are most vulnerable to downward access to global talent, with a potentially significant impact on future economic growth. This study provides data on past and recent global trends in international enrollment, and offers a set of policy recommendations for the US at the federal, state, and institutional level. This includes our recommendation of a national goal to double the number of international students in the US over the next decade to match numbers in a group of competitor nations, and requires recognition that the US will need to strategically expand its enrollment capacity and graduation rates to accommodate needed increases in the educational attainment rate of US citizens, and to welcome more international students. Attracting talent in a global market and increasing degree attainment rates of the domestic population are not mutually exclusive goals. Indeed, they will be the hallmarks of the most competitive economies. (Contains 6 figures and 41 endnotes.)

The California Postsecondary Education Commission recently adopted three reports dealing with postsecondary education and the economy, as part of its Higher Education Performance and Accountability Framework. The reports examined three specific measures: (1) Educational attainment of the population; (2) Links between degree attainment and earnings; and (3) Match between degrees awarded and labor market demand. These papers were discussed by the Commission, its staff, and the Commission's Statutory Advisory Committee representing all the postsecondary education segments. The purpose of this paper is to suggest policy options worthy of further exploration based on previous papers and ensuing discussions. This item reviews what the Commission has learned about the alignment between degree production and California's demand for an educated workforce. It offers a series of options for state colleges and universities to increase enrollment and degree production. It also offers an option for policymakers to consider encouraging increased degree production in specific fields of high state priority but for which there are shortages of qualified workers.

Consistent with the California Postsecondary Education Commission's higher education accountability framework, this report summarizes major findings and conclusions from three 2007 Commission reports assessing the contributions of postsecondary education to California's social, civic, and economic well-being. The Commission's research shows that educational attainment of the population is shaped significantly by migration as well as by the success of California higher education institutions. Likewise, the earnings of graduates are shaped by the overall state of the economy and an ever-shifting national and international labor supply. The Commission's analysis shows that while educational attainment is growing, it is growing more slowly than the national average. (Contains 11 footnotes.)

This report evaluates the contribution of public higher education to raise per capita income in California. The report highlights how diversity in the State's population impacts the need for higher education and presents options for improving income earning using postsecondary education programs. The Commission measured differences in financial rewards for a college education by gender and ethnicity, as well as by degree-attainment level. California's experience is also compared with key competitor states. (Contains 3 displays and 8 footnotes.)

Like previous reports, the seventh annual "Performance Report for Ohio's Colleges and Universities" uses a variety of data and data sources to describe higher education in Ohio, from student academic preparation to learning environments, student progress, degree achievement, and licensure/employment outcomes. The report also provides information about research and job-training activities, and basic financial information about costs, state support and financial aid provided to students. The report is published in two documents: a summary of state-wide and sector-level information and a supporting document containing outcomes measures for individual higher education institutions. Significant findings indicate that: (1) Ohio has made progress in increasing higher educational attainment and research activity, but continues to lag behind other states and the national average; (2) Enrollment in higher education is increasing and the student body reflects the diversity of the Ohio population; (3) Thirty-seven percent of first-time freshmen in public institutions require remedial courses in their first year of college; (4) A high proportion of students attend more than one institution during their academic career and transfer students graduate at lower rates than non-transfer students, indicating that the transfer process is not seamless; (5) Although a majority of students who begin college are successful, there is room for improvement in the areas of retention, degree completion and time-to-degree; (6) Ohio has been graduating more students over the past five years and growth in graduate earnings is high, but in-state retention has decreased slightly over prior years; (7) Ohio's public higher education institutions operate efficiently compared to the rest of the United States; and (8) Tuition fees tend to be high in Ohio, but can be offset by financial aid to those who qualify. (Contains 15 figures and 32 tables.)

This document reports on the educational demand in Southside Virginia and recommendations for action. The Southside is defined as including the cities of Martinsville, Danville, and South Boston and the counties of Henry, Pittsylvania, Patrick, and Franklin. A needs-assessment indicated: (1) Strong interest in attending a college in the Martinsville area, with clear preference for a local college to be a branch campus or affiliated with an existing institution: (2) Necessity of financial aid and need to work and attend school at the same time; (3) Need for broad-based student service offerings and program scheduling to meet needs for part-time enrollment, commuters and resident-students; and (4) Need for specific baccalaureate degree programs, particularly in the fields of health, education, business administration, computer science, programs that capitalize on local assets such as Southside fine arts facilities, and enhanced occupational and entrepreneurial training. It was determined that the recommended model should serve the entire Southside region and should leverage assets and resources of existing public and private institutions. Recommendations include creating physical presences within three Southside sub-regions: Martinsville, Danville, and South Boston, although utilization of current and emerging educational technologies is also encouraged. In an area dependent on now-collapsed manufacturing and agricultural economies, a strong culture of college attendance does not exist, and educational attainment levels are comparatively low. Outreach through K-12 student, family, and teacher initiatives such as college awareness and preparation programs, the FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) Robotics program, and the No Child Left Behind program are cited as essential to promoting enthusiasm for continued education in the Southside region and changing the culture. Recognizing that one institution, or a series of four year degree granting programs, can not single-handedly reform a region economically, the Council recommends development of a comprehensive Southside economic development plan. Citing that a free-standing autonomous institution with fully articulated leadership structure would be the most expensive alternative, a phased entity created in partnership with existing four-year colleges and community colleges is recommended as a more cost-effective way to meet regional needs and is consistent with Virginia's history of establishing new higher education institutions in affiliation with existing institutions.

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Montana include: (1) Montana has made progress in preparing students to succeed in college, and receives a B+ in preparation this year; (2) Montana has lost ground in its efforts to enroll students in higher education. This year Montana receives a C- in participation; (3) Montana has shown no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. Montana receives an F in affordability; (4) Despite substantial improvement in the proportion of students receiving certificates or degrees in a timely manner, Montana receives a B- in completion this year; (5) Despite improvement, Montana continues to lag many other states in realizing the benefits that come from having a more highly educated population. Montana receives a C+ in benefits this year; and (6) Like most states, Montana receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 1 figure.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Hawaii include: (1) Despite improvement, Hawaii lags many other states in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Hawaii receives a C- in preparation; (2) Hawaii has made progress in enrolling students in higher education. This year Hawaii receives a C in participation; (3) Hawaii has lost ground in making higher education affordable, and receives a D in affordability this year; (4) Despite improvement in the proportion of students receiving certificates or degrees in a timely manner, Hawaii receives a B- in completion this year; (5) Hawaii has seen an increase in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. This year, Hawaii earns an A- in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Hawaii receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Iowa include: (1) Iowa has made progress in preparing students to succeed in college, and receives a B+ in preparation this year; (2) Iowa continues to perform well in enrolling students in higher education. This year Iowa receives an A- in participation; (3) Iowa has lost considerable ground in making higher education affordable. Iowa receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Iowa continues its consistently strong performance in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Iowa receives an A in completion; (5) Iowa has made no notable progress in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. This year Iowa earns a C in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Iowa receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 1 figure.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Mississippi include: (1) Despite improvement, Mississippi continues to struggle in preparing students to succeed in college. Mississippi receives a D- in preparation this year; (2) Mississippi has continued to struggle in enrolling students in higher education. This year Mississippi is the only state to receive a D in participation, the lowest grade awarded; (3) Mississippi has lost ground in providing affordable higher education. Mississippi receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Mississippi continues its good performance in the proportion of students earning their certificates or degrees in a timely manner. This year Mississippi receives a B in completion; (5) Despite substantial improvement, Mississippi continues to lag many other states in realizing the benefits that come from having a more highly educated population. Mississippi earns a C in benefits this year; and (6) Like most states, Mississippi receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because in sufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 2 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Indiana include: (1) Despite substantial improvement, Indiana lags many other states in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Indiana receives a C in preparation; (2) Indiana has made little progress in enrolling students in higher education. Indiana receives a C+ in participation this year; (3) Indiana has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. Indiana receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Indiana has maintained its high performance in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Indiana receives a B+ in completion; (5) Despite improvement, Indiana lags many other states in realizing the benefits that come from having a more highly educated population. This year Indiana earns a C in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Indiana receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Idaho include: (1) Despite notable improvement, Idaho lags many other states in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Idaho receives a C in preparation; (2) Idaho has made no notable progress in enrolling students in higher education. This year Idaho receives a D+ in participation; (3) Idaho has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. This year Idaho receives a D in affordability; (4) Idaho has seen no notable improvement in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Idaho receives a C+ in completion; (5) Despite improvement, Idaho continues to lag many other states in the benefits it receives from having a more highly educated population. This year Idaho earns a C- in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Idaho receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Illinois include: (1) Illinois has improved in preparing high school students to succeed in college. This year Illinois receives a B in preparation; (2) Despite a decline in performance, Illinois continues to do well in enrolling students in higher education when compared with other states. This year Illinois receives an A in participation; (3) Illinois has seen a notable decline in the provision of affordable higher education. This year Illinois receives an F in affordability; (4) Illinois has made substantial gains in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. Illinois receives a B+ in completion this year; (5) Illinois has made gains in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. This year Illinois earns an A in benefits; and (6) Illinois is among nine states that receive a "Plus" in Learning because data were sufficient to compare at least two of the three Learning categories in the state results described in this paper. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 2 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Delaware include: (1) Despite improvement, Delaware lags much of the nation in preparing students to succeed in college. Delaware receives a C in preparation this year; (2) Although Delaware has lost ground in enrolling students in higher education, its performance remains good when compared with other states. This year Delaware receives a B in participation; (3) Delaware has made no notable progress in making higher education affordable. Delaware receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Delaware has made substantial gains in the proportion of students earning certificates or degrees in a timely manner. This year Delaware receives an A- in completion; (5) Despite a substantial increase in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population, Delaware earns a B- in benefits this year; and (6) Like most states, Delaware receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 1 figure.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Maine include: (1) Maine has shown improvement in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Maine earns a B in preparation; (2) Maine has shown no notable improvement in the proportion of students enrolling in higher education. This year Maine receives a B- in participation; (3) Maine has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. Maine receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Maine continues its good performance in the proportion of students earning their certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Maine receives a B in completion; (5) Maine has made no notable progress in realizing the benefits that come from having a more highly educated population. This year Maine earns a B- in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Maine receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 2 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Minnesota include: (1) Minnesota has shown improvement in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Minnesota receives a B in preparation; (2) Minnesota continues to excel in enrolling students in higher education. This year Minnesota receives an A in participation; (3) Minnesota has made no notable progress in making higher education affordable. Minnesota earns a D in affordability this year; (4) Minnesota has shown substantial improvement in the proportion of students earning their certificates or degrees in a timely manner. This year Minnesota receives an A in completion; (5) Minnesota has made gains in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. This year Minnesota earns a B+ in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Minnesota receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Colorado include: (1) Colorado has improved in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Colorado receives a B+ in preparation; (2) Colorado continues to perform well in enrolling students in higher education. This year Colorado receives an A- in participation; (3) Colorado has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. Colorado receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Colorado has made substantial gains in the proportion of Colorado's students who earn a certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Colorado receives a B in completion; (5) Colorado continues to realize considerable benefits from having a more highly educated population. This year Colorado earns an A- in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Colorado receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Florida include: (1) Despite improvement, Florida lags much of the nation in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Florida receives a C in preparation; (2) The number of students enrolling in higher education in Florida has declined. Florida receives a C in participation this year; (3) Florida has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. Florida receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Florida continues its strong performance in the proportion of students who earn a certificate or degree in a timely manner. Florida receives an A in completion this year; (5) Florida has seen an increase in the benefits received from having a more highly educated population. Florida earns a B in benefits this year; and (6) Like most states, Florida receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Kansas include: (1) Despite improvement in preparing students to succeed in college, Kansas receives a B- in preparation this year; (2) Kansas continues its consistently high performance in enrolling students in higher education. This year Kansas receives an A in participation; (3) Kansas has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. Kansas receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Kansas has improved substantially in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner, and receives a B+ in completion this year; (5) Kansas has made notable gains in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. Kansas earns a B+ in benefits this year; and (6) Like most states, Kansas receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 1 figure.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Alaska include: (1) Alaska has improved in preparing students to perform well in college, and this year receives a B- in preparation; (2) Alaska has lost ground in its efforts to enroll students in higher education. Alaska receives a C+ in participation this year; (3) Alaska made no notable progress in making higher education affordable. This year Alaska receives an F in affordability; (4) Despite substantial improvement, Alaska is one of the worst-performing states in the proportion of students earning certificates or degrees in a timely manner. This year Alaska is one of only two states to receive an F in completion; (5) Alaska is one of only two states to see a decline in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. This year Alaska earns a B- in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Alaska receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Michigan include: (1) Despite improvement, Michigan lags many other states in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Michigan receives a C- in preparation; (2) Michigan continues to perform very well in enrolling students in higher education. This year Michigan receives an A- in participation; (3) Michigan has lost considerable ground in making higher education affordable. Michigan receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Michigan has shown improvement in the proportion of students earning their certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Michigan receives a B in completion; (5) Michigan has seen an increase in the benefits received from having a more highly educated population. Michigan earns an A- in benefits this year; and (6) Like most states, Michigan receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]