Abstract
The policy instrument described in this analysis is a biennial series of reports, Measuring Up, prepared by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, a non-profit, non-partisan organization located in San Jose, California. These reports focus on the fifty states within the U.S., and employ quantitative performance indicators to compare the states on six educational categories: preparation, participation, completion, affordability, benefits, and learning. Each state receives a letter grade (A through F) indicating its performance relative to top-performing states on each category, and as such the report represents a classic benchmarking exercise. The reports have garnered significant coverage in the media, and are used by state policymakers to examine the underlying policy issues that determine the grades. While the National Center does not advance explicit policy recommendations, the purpose of the Report Cards is to generate a conversation and further research within each state. Several states have extended the basic framework to the county-level, revealing how well (or how poorly) citizens of the state are served by their higher education systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Membership of these groups can be found at the National Center’s website: http://www.highereducation.org.
- 2.
This problem continues to plague aspects of the project, which will be noted accordingly in the text.
- 3.
This indicator is an example of a data problem, in that the underlying National Adult Literacy Survey, was last conducted in 1992, and although those data were used in the 2000 and 2002 Report Cards, they were deemed too far out of date to use in 2004. A new National Assessment of Adult Literacy has been recently conducted, but may prove difficult to extend to the state level.
- 4.
Before the first Report Card was released, the National Center convened a panel chaired by Professor Michael Nettles, to review the weights and suggest changes if necessary. Although a few adjustments were made, the panel argued that the weights were justified based on relevant research.
- 5.
In 2004, the National Center convened an expert panel to review additional indicators that were being considered for inclusion, particularly in the areas of teacher quality and adult learning. The result was inclusion of a new indicator for teacher quality, but no change with the indicators of adult learning.
References
Committee for Economic Development (2005). Cracks in the education pipeline: A business leader’s guide to higher education reform. Washington, DC: CED.
OECD (2004). Education at a glance. Paris: OECD.
Usher, A., Cervevan, A. (2005). Global higher education rankings. Toronto: Educational Policy Institute.
Wagner, A. (2005). Measuring up, internationally. Unpublished draft report prepared for the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. May 2005.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Breneman, D.W. (2010). National Report Card on Higher Education in the USA. In: Dill, D., Beerkens, M. (eds) Public Policy for Academic Quality. Higher Education Dynamics, vol 30. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3754-1_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3754-1_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-3753-4
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-3754-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)