Search

Government supported higher education in the United States evolved from sponsoring knowledge in the public interest, from what was once the provenance of a select few based on inherited privilege, to a democratic expansion of access based on merit. In the process by the mid 20th century until our present, public higher education provided pillars supporting social stability after the political turbulence of the first half of the 20th century (e.g., fascism and Stalinism). Additionally, it was the foundation for research and workforce training requirements of an increasingly complex post-World War II economy. Meanwhile, it recycled money through our economy sustaining consumer demand and business growth. The present erosion of support for public higher education, therefore has troubling implications for maintaining social cohesion; social mobility; the research and training required to respond to national security challenges (e.g., infrastructure to manage crises, such as with Covid-19); sustaining economic demand; and keeping the United States competitive in the global economy. Combine these structural needs with an economy that in March and April lost 25% of its jobs as 36 million Americans filed for unemployment, the imperative to support public higher education is urgent. Public higher education is one of the nation's largest sources of employment. And, the Covid-19 crisis unemployed could productively spend their time acquiring skills preparing to re-enter the workforce when the economy enters a recovery phase. Moreover, the substantial size of the US economy comprised of brick and mortar retail, restaurants, cafes and bars, will not recover soon, and barring the development of effective Covid-19 vaccines, may never fully rebound. This gives further impetus to maintain and expand other sectors of the economy, such as with public higher education. And, lastly, given the social turbulence already observed (e.g., military assault weapon wielding protestors at Midwestern state capitol buildings) early on in this public health crisis, public higher education should expand, not shed, their equity of humanities offerings that help young people understand society and how badly events can unfold if it unravels. In this policy brief, four prominent scholars address how public colleges and universities, after decades of underfunding, can cope with projected budget shortfalls brought on by the pandemic.

Today, the U.S. Department of Education joins the National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, the American Commonwealth Partnership, and the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools in a new national call to action to infuse and enhance civic learning and democratic engagement for all students throughout the American education system. The Department is broadly supportive of the five priorities for action that these groups have developed. In abbreviated form, those priorities are: (1) Advancing civic learning and democratic engagement in both the U.S. and global contexts by encouraging efforts to make them core expectations for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary students--including undergraduate and graduate students; (2) Developing more robust evidence of civic and other student achievement outcomes of civic learning, and of the impact of school- and campus-community partnerships; (3) Strengthening school- and campus-community connections to address significant community problems and advance a local or regional vision and narrative for civic engagement; (4) Expanding research and the range of public scholarship, with a special emphasis on promoting knowledge creation for the good of society; and (5) Deepening civic identity by sharing stories of civic work in social media and organizing deliberative discussions about the roles of higher education in communities across the country, and by creating initiatives in science, arts, and other fields to catalyze civic agency. In this report, the Department outlines directions for advancing civic learning and democratic engagement from grade school to graduate school, with special attention to the federal role and civic learning in higher education. It concludes by proposing nine steps that the Department can take to help expand and elevate civic learning. A bibliography is included. (Contains 3 footnotes.)

For more than ten years, the Ford Policy Forum, an integral part of the Forum for the Future of Higher Education's annual Aspen Symposium, has been chaired by Michael McPherson and Morty Schapiro, presidents of the Spencer Foundation and Northwestern University, respectively. Its intent has been to explore how economics can make individual colleges and universities and our overall higher education "system" more efficient. The Forum's June 2010 Aspen Symposium marked the completion of the Ford Policy Forum, and to celebrate more than a decade of success, the speakers decided that their final session would return to its roots in economics. The participants are not only economists though--they also wear the hats of college and university administrators. Schapiro acted as moderator of the panel, and McPherson, Dennis Ahlburg and David Breneman as panelists. This paper presents a transcript of what took place at the Forum.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Education surveyed the impact of the economic recession on education for the first time in June 2009. Responses were received from seventeen OECD member countries, the Flemish Community of Belgian and two Canadian provinces. The results of the survey reflect the observations of officials in education ministries and public agencies in member countries regarding various aspects of the impact of the economic recession and fiscal crisis on education. The survey indicated that the main effects of the crisis on education were: (1) a marked increase in demand for non-compulsory education in many countries as a result of rising unemployment; (2) some budget cuts in education in some countries; (3) attempts by governments in several countries to reduce the negative consequences on schools and universities by targeted explicit or implicit stimulus measures; vocational education and training, tertiary education and upper-secondary education benefit the most from stimulus measures; and (4) a rather severe impact on private investment. A second OECD "educationtoday" Crisis Survey was carried out over the summer of 2010. Twenty-five OECD member countries completed the questionnaire. The main change between the two surveys is that the first was carried out at a time of economic recession, while the second was developed at a time of economic recovery and fiscal consolidation. Indeed, the education systems in OECD member countries are mainly confronted with the difficulties of governments to maintain the growth of public spending as in past pre-crisis years. The main outcomes of the 2010 survey are the following: (1) The survey data does not portrait an education system dramatically affected by overall budget cuts; (2) In general, governments seem to be rather successful in protecting education spending; (3) The demand for non-compulsory education continues to augment, especially in vocational education and training, although the recession reduces the capacity of enterprises to uphold their training investments; (4) The recession has not slowed down reforms in education; on the contrary, some countries have accelerated reforms; and (5) Some governments are also taking into consideration the difficult situation of private households by increasing social measures to contain education cost. Annexed are: (1) Questionnaire Respondents; (2) The Crisis and Demand for Education in the Past; (3) The Crisis and Expected Demand for Education; (4) Targeting of Stimulus Spending on Education; (5) The Crisis and Public Financing of Education in the Past; (6) The Crisis and Educational Reform; and (7) The Crisis and Expected Public Financing of Education. (Contains 3 tables, 1 box and 4 notes.)

This paper provides initial reflections on the impact of the economic crisis on education across the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) area by analysing the OECD educationtoday crisis survey responses of June 2009. It first looks at the impact of the crisis on education demand and participation, after which the focus turns to the supply side and education financing. The paper suggests that while the education sector appeared to experience increased demand and benefit from growing governmental financing in several OECD countries in June 2009, the crisis may have hidden negative effects particularly on decentralised service delivery and private involvement in education. (Contains 3 boxes and 1 footnote.)

The vitality of New York State's economy depends on deepening the ranks of the skilled workforce, a need that will grow more urgent over the next several years as the Baby Boomer generation moves into retirement. If employers cannot fill high-skilled positions they will lose competitive ground, and some may leave. New York has successfully expanded college enrollment among recent high school graduates over the past decade. Yet enrollment among adults has not only lagged--it has sharply dropped, leaving New York with one of the nation's lowest rates of adult college enrollment. Turning around the decline in adult college participation is essential and achievable. While a successful plan will include several integrated components, this study focuses on what the author believes to be the most essential component: improving affordability so that more working adults can gain access to college and avoid dropping out. Currently, New York's financial aid system is failing adult students. To rectify this problem, the author recommends that New York reform its Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) and seek other vehicles for improving adult access to higher education. (Contains 3 tables, 4 charts, and 45 endnotes.) [This report was produced in part by the Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy.]

Ontario's 24 colleges drive economic growth and social prosperity in the province. Rapidly evolving technologies continue to change the nature of work in every industry sector and the requirements placed on workers at every level. As a result, Ontario must increasingly rely on a workforce with the skills and education to translate change into economic opportunity. By investing to improve access, quality and accountability at Ontario's colleges, the Ontario government underscored the critical role of colleges in creating wealth and prosperity for Ontarians. Two years of funding under the Reaching Higher Plan have better positioned Ontario's colleges to fulfill that role. This paper presents findings from the 2006 survey of Ontario colleges.

Throughout the post-war period there have been many attempts to reform the UK education system, often with an explicit intention to try and make it more productive. The list of education policy reforms that have been attempted over the last 50 years is quite extensive, and recently the UK (and in particular England and Wales) has introduced many innovative market-oriented reforms to its education system, in an attempt to raise standards. The most striking recent reform is that parents have increasingly been given much more choice in terms of the school attended by their children, and schools have been forced to be more accountable. Other notable reforms include a nationally prescribed curriculum, vigorous attempts to raise participation in post-compulsory schooling and the introduction of tuition fees for higher education. In this article the authors describe a number of the more important educational reforms that have been introduced in the UK during the last twenty years or so, and where possible they provide evidence of their impact. However, in the UK, although economists and others are increasingly able to inform policy-makers on the impact and efficacy of specific policy interventions, the evaluation of specific policies in a rigorous manner unfortunately remains relatively unusual. This is mainly because the design of policy interventions is often such that they are not amenable to economic evaluation. Here the authors highlight what one can view as robust findings on each policy intervention, and point to where more evidence is needed. (Contains 4 tables, 2 figures and 5 footnotes.)

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.]

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 Georgia include: (1) Despite improvement, Georgia's performance in preparing students to succeed in college remains low when compared with other states. This year Georgia receives a C+ in preparation; (2) Although Georgia has made gains in enrolling students in higher education, the state's performance remains poor when compared with other states. This year Georgia receives a D+ in participation; (3) Georgia has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. This year Georgia receives an F in affordability; (4) Georgia has made substantial gains in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Georgia receives an A in completion; (5) Despite a notable increase in the benefits received from having a more highly educated population, Georgia earns a B- in benefits this year; and (6) Like most states, Georgia 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 Louisiana include: (1) Despite improvement, Louisiana continues to lag most other states in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Louisiana is one of only two states to receive an F in preparation; (2) Louisiana continues to struggle in enrolling students in higher education. This year Louisiana receives a C- in participation; (3) Louisiana has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. Louisiana receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Despite substantial improvement, Louisiana lags many other states in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Louisiana receives a C- in completion; (5) Louisiana continues to struggle in realizing the benefits that come from having a more highly educated population. This year Louisiana is one of only two states to receive a D+ in benefits, the lowest grade awarded; and (6) Like most states, Louisiana 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 Rhode Island include: (1) Despite improvement, Rhode Island's performance in preparing students to succeed in college remains low when compared with other states. This year Rhode Island receives a C+ in preparation; (2) Rhode Island has consistently excelled in enrolling students in higher education. This year Rhode Island receives an A in participation; (3) Rhode Island has lost ground in providing affordable higher education. Rhode Island, along with many other states this year, receives an F in affordability; (4) Rhode Island has improved on its already excellent performance in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Rhode Island receives an A in completion; (5) Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island earns a B in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Rhode Island 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 Massachusetts include: (1) Massachusetts has improved on its already excellent performance in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Massachusetts receives an A in preparation; (2) Despite a decline in performance, Massachusetts continues to excel in enrolling students in higher education. This year Massachusetts receives an A in participation; (3) Massachusetts has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. This year Massachusetts is one of many states to receive an F in affordability; (4) Massachusetts has made notable gains in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. Massachusetts receives an A in completion this year; (5) Massachusetts has seen an increase in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. Massachusetts earns an A in benefits this year; and (6) Massachusetts 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 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 California include: (1) Despite substantial improvement, California's performance in preparing students to succeed in college remains low when compared with other states. This year California receives a C in preparation; (2) California continues to perform well in enrolling students in higher education. This year California receives an A in participation; (3) California has generally made progress in making higher education affordable, primarily through its many low-priced community colleges. Despite that trend, California has lost ground through recent tuition and fee increases. This year California earns a C- in affordability; (4) California has seen substantial gains in the proportion of students earning certificates and degrees in a timely manner. This year California receives a B in completion; (5) California has seen an increase in the benefits it receives from a more highly educated population. This year California earns an A in benefits; and (6) Like most states, California 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 Connecticut include: (1) Connecticut continues its historically strong performance in preparing high school students to succeed in college. This year Connecticut receives an A- in preparation; (2) Connecticut continues its strong performance in enrolling students in higher education. This year Connecticut receives an A- in participation; (3) Connecticut has lost considerable ground in providing affordable higher education. Connecticut receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Connecticut continues to perform well in the proportion of students earning their certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Connecticut receives a B+ in completion; (5) Connecticut has seen an increase in benefits from having a more highly educated population. Connecticut receives an A in benefits this year; and (6) Like most states, Connecticut 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 Arkansas include: (1) Despite substantial improvement, high school students in Arkansas are poorly prepared for college when compared with students in other states. This year Arkansas receives a D+ in preparation; (2) Despite substantial improvement, Arkansas lags much of the nation in enrolling students in higher education. This year Arkansas receives a C in participation; (3) Arkansas has made no notable progress in making higher education affordable. This year Arkansas receives an F in affordability; (4) Although Arkansas has made substantial gains in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner, the state's performance remains low when compared with other states. This year Arkansas receives a C in completion; (5) Despite substantial gains, Arkansas continues to struggle to realize the benefits that come from having a more highly educated population. This year Arkansas receives a C in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Arkansas 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 Alabama include: (1) Despite improvement, Alabama continues to struggle in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Alabama earns a D- in preparation; (2) Alabama has made little progress in the number of students enrolling in higher education. This year Alabama receives a C in participation; (3) Alabama has lost considerable ground in making higher education affordable. This year Alabama receives an F in affordability; (4) Alabama has made no notable progress in the proportion of students receiving certificates or degrees in a timely manner. This year Alabama earns a B- in completion; (5) Alabama has seen an increase in the benefits it receives from having a more highly educated population. This year Alabama earns a B in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Alabama 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.]