The Governance Divide

THE GOVERNANCE DIVIDE:
A Report on a Four-State Study on
Improving College Readiness and Success
By
Andrea Venezia
Patrick M. Callan
Joni E. Finney
Michael W. Kirst
Michael D. Usdan
September 2005
THE INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND HIGHER EDUCATION
THE STANFORD INSTITUTE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH
ii
National Center Report #05-3
©2005 by The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
Material may be duplicated with full attribution.
iii
Contents
Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. The Context for K–16 Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
III. Overview of Public Education Governance in Four States . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
IV. Primary Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
V. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Appendix: Education Performance in the Four States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
The Institute for Educational Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
The Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
iv
The Governance Divide
Foreword
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education and its partners,
the Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research, and the Institute for
Educational Leadership, have spent many years analyzing reforms that span
K–12 and postsecondary education, and advocating for K–16 reform. Our
current, fractured systems do not serve students well and are based on the
outdated view that only an elite group of students attends college. Now, the
majority of students attends some form of postsecondary education after
high school, but there are a host of problems confronting them. Many do not
complete their programs of study, almost half the students in higher education
require remediation, and college-going and completion rates are highly
inequitable in terms of income level, race, and ethnicity. As student
demographics shift in the coming years, and students who are traditionally
under-represented in postsecondary education become the majority, our nation
could face an educational crisis.
To reverse this course, we must connect high school and postsecondary
education standards, policies, and practices. Much of this must occur at the state
level. Many of our previous projects, such as those discussed in The Learning
Connection, From High School to College, Betraying the College Dream, and Gathering
Momentum, spurred us to focus on state governance policies and structures
as vehicles to create these changes. This report is an important next step in
understanding the role of state governance in K–16 reform.
The Governance Divide
v
We wish to thank the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation for its generous
support of this project, and for its continued support of this field. The contents
of this publication do not necessarily represent the views of the Kauffman
Foundation, its officers or staff. We also wish to thank all of the interviewees in
our four case study states: Florida, Georgia, New York, and Oregon. They gave
us their time and candor about a host of politically sensitive issues. Several
reviewers—David Conley, Joseph Creech, Patrick Dallet, Jan Kettlewell, Neil
Kleiman, Richard Richardson, Charles Santelli, and Patricia Windham—gave
generously of their time, and improved the four case studies from which this
report is drawn. We especially wish to thank Shawn Whiteman at the National
Center for doing such a superb job staffing this project.
Andrea Venezia
Patrick M. Callan
Joni E. Finney
Michael W. Kirst
Michael D. Usdan

The Governance Divide
vii
Executive Summary
This report is based on findings from Partnerships for Student Success (PSS),
a four-state study that analyzed K–16 educational governance and policies
at the state level, such as organizational structures, leadership, finance, curricula
and assessment, accountability, and data systems.1 An underlying belief of PSS
is that changes in statewide governance policies and structures can enable deep,
classroom-level effects. The focus of the research is on students who attend
“broad access” postsecondary institutions (colleges and universities with
relaxed admission criteria); approximately 80% of college students enroll in
these kinds of institutions. Acentral question driving the PSS research concerns
whether particular kinds of governance structures are more effective than others
in using policy levers to facilitate and maintain K–16 reforms. This attention
to governance structures is particularly relevant now, when some states are
looking toward the development of K–16 commissions and other possible ways
to connect their educational systems.
The findings in this research report move the K–16 agenda forward by
proposing a set of state policy levers that can be used to create meaningful
changes for students. In addition, this report identifies the role of other factors—
such as leadership and state culture and history—in implementing and
sustaining K–16 reforms within states. The findings of this research demonstrate
the real challenges—and opportunities—that states face as they seek to improve
transitions between high school and college. This report provides state leaders
with real-world policy choices, showing the kinds of steps several states have
taken, and the implications of these policy decisions over time. The report also
offers recommendations to help states transform ad hoc approaches into
sustained action and institutionalized, long-term K–16 reforms. Every state
needs to increase the percentage of students who complete high school and
finish some form of postsecondary education; existing governance structures
and policies cannot meet this overwhelming need. For most states, these
structures and policies must be revised in significant ways.
viii
The Governance Divide
This work spurred the development of a forthcoming publication by the
authors, entitled Claiming Common Ground, based on all of their work in the
field, including The Learning Connection, Gathering Momentum, and Stanford
University’s Bridge Project and the related book, From High School to College.
The Governance Divide, as the title suggests, focuses on state governance
mechanisms that can help students’ readiness for, and success in, postsecondary
education. Claiming Common Ground goes a step further, making the case for
why such work is a state and national imperative.
Currently, K–12 and postsecondary education exist in separate worlds in
the United States. Policies for each system of education are typically created in
isolation from each other—even though, in contrast to the past, most students
eventually move from one system to the other. Students in K–12 rarely know
what to expect when they enter college, nor do they have a clear sense of how
to prepare for that next step. Particularly now, in the 21st century, when more
students must complete some postsecondary education to have an economically
secure life, the need for improved transitions from high school to college is
urgent. This need for some postsecondary education extends beyond individual
aspirations. In this global economy, businesses and communities—and our
nation as a whole—must have residents who have achieved educational success
beyond high school.
It is good public policy to make sure our education systems better suit
students’ needs and aspirations—and our country’s needs. America’s high
school students have higher aspirations for their own education than ever
before. Over 90% of high school seniors in the United States plan to attend
college (including two- and four-year colleges), and about 70% of high school
graduates actually do go to college within two years of graduating.2 Measuring
Up 2004, a report card focusing on higher education, demonstrated that
students’ aspirations are continuing to rise, yet college opportunity has not
increased, particularly for traditionally under-represented student groups,
whose numbers are growing.3 These educational aspirations extend across
income, racial, and ethnic groups and are grounded in economic reality. In 2000,
the median annual earnings for workers ages 25 and over with a high school
diploma were $24,267, compared to $26,693 for those with an associate’s degree
and $40,314 for those with a bachelor’s degree.4
The Governance Divide
ix
Despite their high aspirations, many students are not well prepared for
college, and too few complete their college programs. Nationally, 63% of
students in two-year colleges and 40% of those in four-year institutions take
some remedial education.5 About half of first-year students at community
colleges do not continue on for a second year. Approximately a quarter of
first-year students at four-year colleges do not stay for their second year.6
State policies send important signals to students about what they need
to know and be able to do, to educators about what is important, and to
researchers and policymakers about issues such as student needs. States have
created disjointed systems with separate standards, governing entities, and
policies. As a result, they have also created unnecessary and detrimental barriers
between high school and college—barriers that undermine students’ aspirations
and their abilities to succeed.
FINDINGS
Policy Levers States Can Use to Create Change
Our research found that there are four policy levers that are particularly
promising for states interested in creating sustained K–16 reform: assessments
and curricula, finance, data systems, and accountability.
Alignment of Courses and Assessments. States need to make
sure that what students are asked to know and do in high
school is connected to postsecondary expectations—both in
coursework and assessments. Currently, students in most states
graduate from high school under one set of standards and face a
disconnected and different set of expectations in college. Many
students enter college unable to perform college-level work.
Finance. State education finance systems must become K–16;
this includes the legislative committees and staff functions that
oversee finance and budgetary decisions. State finance structures
are lagging behind other areas in existing K–16 reform. If
education finance can span education systems, it has the
potential to drive change in many other policy arenas as well.
x
The Governance Divide
Data Systems. States must create high-quality data systems that
span the K–16 continuum. K–16 data systems should identify
good practices, diagnose problems, provide information
about all education levels, provide students with diagnostic
information to help them prepare better, assess and improve
achievement, and track individual students over time across
levels.7Without such systems, it is impossible to assess needs
effectively, understand where the problems are, gain traction
for changes needed, and evaluate reforms.
Accountability. States need to connect their accountability
systems to span K–12 and postsecondary education. Currently,
accountability systems are usually designed for either K–12 or
postsecondary education without much attention to the interface
between the two. Accountability systems need to reflect, better,
the reality of students’ educational paths.
As states seek to engage in K–16 reforms, it is important that each state does
so with an understanding of its culture and history. For this reason, a one-sizefits-
all model will not work in developing K–16 reforms. Nonetheless, the
culture and history of a state do not create insurmountable barriers to the
establishment of such reforms.
Establishing and empowering organizational structures that can transcend
the barriers between educational sectors is essential in promoting K–16 reforms.
These bodies should be charged with specific responsibilities, provided with
the requisite resources, empowered with enough influence and authority
to make real change, and held accountable for performance. State agency
collaboration—both in terms of the content of work and the organizational
structures supporting that work—is essential, and having components of K–16
reform in statute appears to be useful but not sufficient for creating change.8
Leadership at the state level is of crucial importance in establishing a vision
and sustaining long-term change. These initiatives must be collaborative; it is
not possible for a governor, postsecondary education system, or K–12 system to
drive these efforts alone. Also, it is important to consider and implement broadbased
and deeply embedded incentives to promote collaboration across sectors.
The policy levers described above—particularly in the areas of finance and
accountability—provide examples of such incentive structures.
The Governance Divide
xi
We caution state education leaders that convening a commission and
holding cross-system discussions may be helpful, but are not sufficient for
creating meaningful and lasting K–16 reform. At the end of the day, the litmus
test will not be the establishment of commissions or panels. To be lasting and
effective, the deliberations must be anchored in policy and finance reform, and
those policies must drive the type of governance structure that is needed.
K–16 reform cuts into the heart of major education issues and needs
currently confronting this nation: the ability of students to complete K–12 and
finish some form of postsecondary education, and the ability of states to provide
students with a clear and consistent set of policies and programs. The findings
in this report demonstrate the real opportunities—and challenges—that states
face as they seek to improve transitions between high school and college. These
findings focus on actions and reforms that have the potential to effect change in
every classroom in a state. As the findings reveal, the responsibility for reform
cannot be carried by one sector, but rather must be shared across systems to
reach common ground, focusing on improving K–12 and postsecondary
education for all students.

The Governance Divide
1
I. Introduction
For years, state policymakers, business leaders, and educators have been
concerned about the lack of clear policies and information that could help
guide students in making a smooth transition from high school to college. The
need to improve this transition is particularly crucial now, in the 21st century,
when students who aspire to an economically secure lifestyle must complete at
least some education or training beyond high school. As Mark Warner, governor
of Virginia, and Kerry Killinger, chairman and CEO of Washington Mutual,
wrote to open the National Education Summit on High Schools:
For more than a century, our nation’s high schools embodied
America’s promise: a free public education preparing
conscientious students for good jobs with decent wages. Today,
however, this legacy is in jeopardy because most new jobs—
two-thirds during the next decade—will demand educational
achievement above and beyond a high school diploma.9
Having opportunities for higher education is crucial for individuals; offering
such opportunities is equally important for communities, states, and the nation
as a whole. In this global economy, the most economically secure communities,
states, and nations are those whose residents have a strong knowledge base.
Likewise, many of the most successful businesses are those that have access to
and make good use of educated workers. Given the economic realities of the
21st century, providing opportunities for residents to prepare for, enroll in, and
succeed in postsecondary education is vital to the health of our communities,
our states, and our nation.
From students’ perspectives, there is a wide gap between our systems of
K–12 education and our systems of higher education—a rift that students must
cross if they are to gain access to education or training beyond high school. This
disjuncture between K–12 schools and postsecondary education can be found in
From students’
perspectives,
there is a wide
gap between our
systems of
K–12 education
and our systems
of higher
education.
2
The Governance Divide
every state, and it derives from a tradition in which schools have developed
separately from higher education. As Michael Kirst writes:
Aprofound organizational, political, and cultural chasm persists
in most states between the governance systems of K–12 and
higher education. The two sectors continue to operate in
separate orbits and to live apart in separate professional worlds,
associations, and networks…Within each state—and at the
federal level as well—a division exists that is based on the
historical and pervasive assumption that K–12 schools and
colleges and universities should be guided by policies exclusive
to each sector. As a result, the public policy “tools” that influence
one sector—funding, accountability, and governance systems,
for instance—have little in common with the policy tools that
influence the other. Moreover, there are separate state boards of
education for each level; separate legislative committees, and
boards that coordinate one level (e.g. postsecondary education)
without the other.10
The vast majority of students in the United States—with the assistance of
their parents, guidance counselors, teachers, and others—do try to negotiate the
divide between high school and college. But they often face unexpected hurdles,
such as graduating under one set of expectations in high school and, several
months later, entering into a whole new set of standards in college. Other
problems have been documented in the following areas:| the intensity and quality of high school courses,| inequities in college preparation opportunities,| high school achievement gaps,| a confusing array of state and institutional exams within and between
the education sectors,| high postsecondary remediation rates,| insufficient college persistence and completion, and| postsecondary achievement gaps.11
The Governance Divide
3
Although the disjunctions between K–12 and higher education—and their
effects on students—have been described by state policymakers and educational
leaders for years, they are often perceived by those within schools and colleges
as existing outside their educational enterprise. Nonetheless, the responsibility
for building transitions from high school to college remains at the heart of the
educational missions of both K–12 and higher education. As Kati Haycock writes:
Regardless of one’s vantage point—from higher education
looking downward, from K–12 education looking upward, or
from policymakers looking at both—it is almost immediately
obvious that the problems in one sector cannot be solved
without the cooperation of the other sector. Colleges and
universities may want to increase the number of minorities
entering the freshman year or to decrease the number of such
students requiring remediation, for example, but meeting that
goal is largely beyond their control… Likewise, the success of
K–12’s efforts to improve achievement and close gaps between
groups is hugely dependent upon the quality and quantity of
teachers produced by higher education.12
Several states are working to improve the connections between their
systems of K–12 and postsecondary education, and some have established
governance structures and policies that seek to bridge the systems. In order to
learn from these initiatives, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education, Stanford University’s Institute for Higher Education Research,
and the Institute for Educational Leadership, with support from The Ewing
Marion Kauffman Foundation, created Partnerships for Student Success (PSS)—
a joint effort to analyze those statewide educational governance structures and
policy levers that are most likely to support successful efforts to connect K–12
and postsecondary education systems, particularly those efforts that directly
affect students.
Partnerships for Student Success focuses on state-level educational
governance policies, with an emphasis on policies that can affect classroom-level
practices. Amajor goal is to improve policies that impact student transitions
into, and between, broad access institutions (postsecondary institutions with
The responsibility
for building
transitions from
high school to
college remains
at the heart of
the educational
missions of both
K–12 and higher
education.
4
The Governance Divide
relaxed admission criteria); approximately 80% of college students enroll in such
institutions. Understanding the role of governance structures in developing and
sustaining K–16 reform is crucial, especially since many states are currently
creating K–16 councils and commissions to connect their education levels.
The findings from this project illustrate the hurdles and successes faced
by these four states as they work to improve student transitions between
high school and college. These issues are relevant for all states, and provide
education leaders with a variety of policy options and related implications. The
recommendations are focused on helping states transform ad hoc approaches
into institutionalized, long-term, K–16 reforms. Every state needs to improve its
high school graduation and college persistence rates, and existing governance
structures and policies cannot meet this overwhelming need. Most states will
need to revise, significantly, their governance policies and structures to make
them K–16. Many states, if they are to sustain K–16 reforms, will also need to
improve K–16 data collection, usage, and accountability. 13
Figure 1 portrays the contours of governance as identified by PSS research.
State organizational structures and the people within them (for example,
governors, legislators, state agencies, and state committees) affect the
decision-making procedures, rules, and norms of state governance. These
procedures and rules, in turn, influence state policy levers, such as finance
mechanisms, education standards, curricula and assessments, data systems, and
accountability—each of which is considered a component of state governance.
State culture and history also influence all facets of state governance. For
example, legislative committees usually reinforce separations between
education sectors; they do not necessarily create an environment that is
conducive to joint budgeting or creative policymaking between K–12 schools
and higher education. Even strong K–16 leadership within the executive branch
of government cannot succeed for the long term if it is not reinforced through
legislative action.
Existing
governance
structures and
policies cannot
meet this
overwhelming
need.
The Governance Divide
5
Figure 1
In conducting this research, we found that many state leaders, in discussing
K–16 reforms, described initiatives that spanned a broad spectrum from
universal preschool to teacher education programs. We recognize that many of
these programs can have a beneficial effect on improving student preparation
for college.
In addition, we found many good examples of local and regional efforts to
improve transitions from high school to college. We urge people to learn more
about programs and policies such as Running Start in the State of Washington
and the El Paso Collaborative in Texas. Local and regional policymaking
should be stimulated and supported by purposeful, aligned, and coherent state
policymaking, for the most effective route to reform builds upon local, regional,
and state policymaking.
We also found pre-college outreach programs to be a common institutional,
systemwide, and statewide response to the problems associated with the divide
between high schools and colleges. Such outreach programs teach students how
6
The Governance Divide
to succeed within dysfunctional systems and that is of crucial importance—
particularly for students who are the first in their families to attend college.
The PSS research, however, focuses primarily on statewide governance and
policy levers, rather than on individual programs, local or regional initiatives,
or pre-college outreach efforts. Although many of these efforts can be successful
on the margins, they do not address the overall inter-level disconnections
that students across the state face when moving from one system to another.
Partnerships for Student Success explores those systemic issues that require
more coherent statewide policymaking—those efforts that seek to connect the
systems to ensure that all students can be prepared for, gain access to, and
succeed in postsecondary education.
Measuring Up 2004, a report card focusing on higher education,
demonstrated that most states face serious challenges in preparing students for
education or training beyond high school, providing them with opportunities
for college, and promoting completion of certificates and degrees in a timely
manner. The report card found that although more high school students
are taking rigorous courses today than a decade ago, smaller proportions
of students are finishing high school and enrolling in college right after
graduating. College participation gaps among students of different races,
ethnicities, and income levels have persisted and, in some cases, widened.
Compared with a decade ago, only slightly more students who do enter college
are completing their degree programs.14 In light of these significant challenges,
Partnerships for Student Success raises awareness of the growing impact of
K–16 governance problems on the performance of public schools and colleges.
It also provides state policymakers with the tools to develop and institutionalize
their K–16 reforms successfully.
K–16 reform is not a discrete, isolated issue; nor is it a nonessential altruistic
gesture. It cuts into the heart of major education issues and needs currently
confronting this nation: the ability of students to complete K–12 and finish some
form of postsecondary education, and the capacity of states to provide students
with a clear and consistent set of policies and programs. K–16 issues are often
relegated to the margins of educational and political debates because there
is no natural constituency or accountable group for this issue that spans the
established education sectors. Students and their families are the constituency
for enhanced K–16 articulation; students and their families deserve better from
public education systems and state education policies.
K–16 issues are
often relegated
to the margins
of educational
and political
debates.
The Governance Divide
7
II. The Context for K–16 Reform
America’s high school students have higher aspirations for their own
education today than ever before. Over 90% of high school seniors in the
United States plan to attend college (including two- and four-year colleges), and
approximately 70% of high school graduates do enroll in college within two
years of graduating.15 Measuring Up 2004 showed that college aspirations are
continuing to rise, yet college opportunity has not increased, particularly for
traditionally under-represented student groups.16
These high educational aspirations cut across income, racial, and ethnic
lines, and they are grounded in economic reality. Data from the U.S. Census
Bureau illustrate the significant economic returns of enhanced education. In
2000, the median annual earnings for workers ages 25 and over with a high
school diploma were $24,267, compared with $26,693 for workers with an
associate’s degree and $40,314 for those with a bachelor’s degree.17 There
are also economic benefits associated with completing community college
certificates, although the amount of the benefit varies by field of study.18
Despite having high aspirations for college, many students are underprepared
for college and too few complete their college programs. Once they
enroll in college, many students are startled to learn that getting into a college is
often the easiest step. Nationally, 63% of students at two-year institutions and
40% of students at four-year institutions take some remedial education.19 Only
34% of students who are required to take one remedial reading course complete
a two- or four-year degree, compared with 56% of students who do not have to
take a remedial course.20 About half of first-year students at community colleges
do not continue on for a second year. Approximately a quarter of first-year
students at four-year colleges do not stay for their second year.21
While issues such as student finances are closely tied to preparation
for college and persistence while in college, the intensity and quality of the
secondary school curriculum is the best predictor of whether or not a student
will go on to complete a bachelor’s degree.22 In 1992, 72% of students went on
8
The Governance Divide
to college within two years of graduating from high school, but only 47% of
them had enrolled in a college preparatory curriculum in high school.23 These
are issues for students from all backgrounds, but they are particularly relevant
for students who are the first in their families to go to college, and for lowincome
students.
Of every 100 white, non-Latino students, 93 graduate from high school, 62
complete some college, and 29 obtain a bachelor’s degree. For African-American
students, the numbers are lower: 86 graduate from high school, 48 complete
some college, and 15 obtain a bachelor’s degree. For Latino students, the
numbers are lower still: 61 graduate from high school, 31 complete some
college, and 10 obtain a bachelor’s degree.24 Not only are African-American and
Latino students not obtaining college certificates and degrees at the same rate as
their white, non-Latino counterparts, they are not graduating from high school
with the same level of academic skills. Across the country, African-American
and Latino 12th graders read and do math at about the same levels as white,
non-Latino 8th graders. This is particularly problematic, given the data on
college remediation and the extent to which the necessity of one or more
remedial courses (particularly in math or reading) negatively influences the
chances that some students will obtain a bachelor’s degree.25 Thus, while all
students are affected by poor, fractured, inter-level state policies, historically
under-represented students are usually the most negatively impacted.
States have created unnecessary and detrimental barriers between
high school and college—barriers that undermine students’ aspirations and
their ability to succeed. As Kirst outlines, the fractures between K–12 and
postsecondary education in the United States stem, in part, from “the laudable
way the nation created mass education systems for both K–12 and higher
education.”26 High schools were designed for many purposes, and did not focus
primarily on college preparation. Historically, because college was for an elite
group of students, college preparation was provided to a minority of students.
While there used to be some links between high school and college standards
(for example, the College Board’s work to set uniform standards for each
academic subject and develop syllabi for college entrance requirements), those
connections frayed after World War II. Richardson et al. document how, when
States have
created
unnecessary and
detrimental
barriers between
high school
and college.
The Governance Divide
9
postsecondary enrollment grew dramatically between 1950 and 1980, states
began creating new organizational structures to govern higher education; by
1979, every state had such an entity.27 Those groups rarely interacted with states’
K–12 governing bodies and state agencies.
As a result, the states have disjointed systems with separate standards,
governing entities, and policies, and a large college-going population. While
there are many regional and local efforts to connect the systems, state-level
K–16 reform is in its infancy. Public postsecondary education is a part of the
nation’s mass system of education, yet we have outdated systems based on the
assumption that only an elite group attends college. Our fractured systems send
students, their parents, and K–12 educators conflicting and vague messages
about what students need to know and be able to do to enroll and succeed in
college. For example, Stanford University’s Bridge Project found that high
school assessments often stress different knowledge and skills than do college
entrance and placement requirements. Similarly, the coursework between high
school and college is not connected. Current data systems are not equipped
to address students’ progress across systems. This means that no one is held
accountable for issues related to student transitions from high school to college.28
Now that a majority of high school graduates attend some form of postsecondary
education, and almost all students aspire to attend college, states
must take action to ensure that all students have access to high quality academic
preparation opportunities, affordable postsecondary options, and increased
opportunities to succeed in college. Postsecondary institutions and systems
need to become involved in resolving these issues while students are preparing
for college, rather than waiting for students to arrive on their doorstep.
While many of these issues are common across states, our research reaffirms
that state-specific contexts matter a great deal. The next section outlines
important contextual information for the four states that Partnerships for
Student Success studied. The information presented helps to identify how state
political cultures, traditions, and governance policies and structures can affect
K–16 approaches and reform efforts.
We have
outdated
systems
based on the
assumption
that only an
elite group
attends college.
10
The Governance Divide
III. Overview of Public Education Governance in Four States
This report is based on three main sources of information: state-level
interviews conducted in Florida, Georgia, New York, and Oregon; a review
of related literature and research; and data from relevant Web sites.29 In addition,
the research team drew upon its previous work in this area, including the
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education’s Measuring Up
series,30 Stanford University’s Bridge Project,31 and the Institute for Educational
Leadership’s wealth of experience with both K–12 and postsecondary issues.32
The challenges and opportunities of K–16 reform are of national concern,
and the four states selected for this research reflect that. Florida, Georgia, New
York, and Oregon were chosen because of their varied approaches to, or
governance contexts regarding, K–16 reform. Two of the states have state
education governance structures that encompass both K–12 and postsecondary
education, while the other two have relied more on specific projects to improve
student preparation and success.
New York, with its centuries-old governance structure that connects K–12
and postsecondary education, was a logical choice for inclusion in the study. In
studying New York, we wanted to know if such an historic and institutionalized
K–16 structure helps promote systemic change and collaboration across sectors.
Unlike New York, Florida’s entrance into K–16 governance is recent. Florida
reorganized its entire education governance structure in 2001. Responsibility
for both public K–12 and postsecondary education is now under the State
Department of Education, and chancellors representing the education sectors
report to the commissioner of education, who reports to the governor. In
studying Florida, we wanted to understand the goals and objectives of the new
system; how these goals are affecting policy change outside of the state capital;
the levers used to connect the systems; and the results, if any, at this early stage.
Georgia and Oregon have engaged in extensive project-based work at the
state level to connect their education systems, but they have taken different
approaches. Both have housed the work primarily in postsecondary agencies
The Governance Divide
11
and have focused on such issues as proficiency-based learning across the
systems, standards and assessments across the systems, and teacher education
reform. Georgia is well known for having state and regional P–16 councils,
while Oregon has spent over 10 years working to connect its systems, including
institutionalizing components of its Proficiency-Based Admission Standards
System into the state’s K–12 reforms. Georgia has elements of its P–16 reforms in
statute, including a statutory P–16 governing body, while Oregon does not. By
conducting research in these two states, we wanted to understand the role of
governance and related policies in the development, implementation, and
institutionalization of the substance of the K–16 reforms.
Since the field research was conducted almost entirely within state
agencies in four states, it is not conclusive, nor can we generalize extensively.
Nonetheless, there are important lessons to be learned from the states’ efforts.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report must be viewed
within this context. Like most case studies, this work provides information from
a snapshot in time (2003–2004), in ever-changing political and policy contexts.
In each of the four states, the project focused on the following questions:| What are the main goals and objectives of current K–16 governancerelated
reforms at the state level?| What are the organizational structures in place to support K–16 reform?| What K–16 policies have been developed and implemented? By whom?
How? More specifically, has the state made changes in the areas of
finance, curricula and assessments, data systems, and accountability?| Does the state have a history and political culture that supports
relationships and reforms among the educational systems?| What are the incentives and disincentives for improved connections?| Who is responsible for developing and implementing these kinds
of reform efforts? Is legislative or gubernatorial action to promote
collaboration likely?| What are the main successes and failures of governance change to date?| To what extent do state budgetary practices impede or encourage the
establishment and viability of inter-level programs?| How do the reforms, incentives, disincentives, successes, and barriers
differ among the four states, and why?
12
The Governance Divide| In what ways, and under what circumstances, do cooperation and
conflict between the educational systems manifest themselves?
STATE-BY-STATE GOVERNANCE
The fragmented manner in which most state policy is created on issues that
span the K–16 continuum suggests a need for a better understanding of the state
governance structures that promote improved planning and connections across
the education sectors. The structure and organization of legislative committees
in most states reinforce the divide between K–12 and postsecondary education.
Among the states in this study, Georgia and New York have separate K–12 and
higher education committees in the House and Senate; Oregon and Florida
have committees that oversee both sectors in the House and Senate. Florida has
committees charged with overseeing K–20 education, and it will be important
to learn from their work over time. In addition, having separate legislative
committees that coordinate education policymaking versus the appropriation
of funds makes it very difficult to coordinate policies across the systems.
Appropriations committees are of crucial importance in seeking to connect K–12
and higher education, but they usually have different subcommittees for these
two sectors of education. More work needs to be done to understand the inner
workings of legislative committees in relation to K–16 reform. In the meantime,
however, legislative bodies can and should seek to resolve their own structural
divisions between K–12 and postsecondary education.
This section provides state-specific information about the context of K–16
reforms in each of the four states. Additional information about education
performance in each of the states is included in the appendix. Since every state
has its own methods and traditions of overseeing public education, as well as
its own strengths and challenges in educational performance, this information
provides an important context that helps to clarify states’ diverse approaches to
education reform.33
FLORIDAGOVERNANCE AND REFORM
Florida’s education governance system has recently undergone one of the most
drastic changes of any state governance system. In 1994, Republicans in the state
gained control of the Senate. In 1996, they gained control of the House. In the
same year, the state’s K–12 Sunshine Standards were approved by the State
Board of Education. In 2001, under Governor Jeb Bush, the state abolished the
The Governance Divide
13
Board of Regents. All lines of state education authority, from early childhood
through postsecondary education, now fall under the Department of Education
(DOE); the Commissioner of Education reports to the State Board of Education,
which in turn reports to the governor. All public education staff—kindergarten
through graduate school—falls within the purview of the DOE. The department
was restructured to reflect the new K–20 focus, and staff wrote a new school
code. The new duties of the State Board of Education officially began in 2003;
the DOE is now considered the governor’s agency. ACommissioner’s Cabinet
is comprised of three chancellors, each of whom oversees one of the major areas
within the department: K–12 schools, community colleges, and colleges and
universities. The chancellors are also members of the commissioner’s K–20
policy council.
In reaction to the elimination of the Board of Regents, U.S. Senator Bob
Graham (Florida) in 2002 sponsored an amendment to the state’s constitution
to re-create the Board of Regents as a new entity called the Board of Governors
(BOG). This was not a part of the
governor’s K–20 reforms and was
opposed by Governor Bush’s
administration. The amendment
passed. The BOG is now in charge of
the State University System, but it
does not have a budget or a separate
staff (its staff is from the DOE), it
cannot allocate money, and it cannot
hire chancellors or presidents. The
Commissioner of Education is a
member of the BOG.
The governor appoints all
members of the Board of Education,
in addition to the university boards,
community college boards, the
Council for Educational Policy
Research and Improvement (CEPRI),
and the BOG.
Florida has a long history of
collaboration and policy development
between K–12 and postsecondary
FLORIDA STATE CONTEXT
Share of State Appropriations
K–12 receives 25%.
Higher education receives 20%.
Legislative Committee Structure*
Senate
Education Committee includes K–12 and
higher education.
Appropriations Committees handle requests
from both K–12 and higher education.
Commerce, Economic Opportunities, and
Consumer Services Committee addresses
financial aid issues for higher education.
House
Education K–20 Committee is divided into the
following subcommittees: Education
Innovation, Higher Education, and Pre-K
Through Grade 12.
Appropriations Committee handles both K–12
and higher education.
* This list is not exhaustive.
14
The Governance Divide
education. While the K–20 governance reforms have been rapidly enacted and
sweeping in nature, there is an established foundation on which to build. This
foundation includes: a statewide articulation agreement; a common coursenumbering
system; common prerequisites; acceleration mechanisms (for
example, Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate); a 36-hour rule
for general education courses (all postsecondary institutions must require 36
hours of general education for both two- and four-year degrees); extensive data
collection across the sectors; a common student-identifying number across the
sectors; a common application for all public four-year universities; and Bright
Futures (a lottery-funded scholarship program geared toward improving
student preparation for college and promoting in-state college attendance).
In terms of Florida’s current K–20 reforms, the most highly evolved of its
inter-level initiatives appear to be its K–20 accountability plan, its performancefunding
model, and its K–20 data warehouse. The DOE is investigating the level
of alignment between the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (the FCAT)
and the statewide postsecondary placement exam. In conjunction with the
College Board and the U.S. Department of Education, the state is also piloting
a program to increase the rigor of high school coursework.
For more information, see The Governance Divide: The Case Study for
Florida at www.highereducation.org.
GEORGIAGOVERNANCE AND REFORM
Georgia is often cited as being one of the nation’s leaders in the area of P–16
reform. It has been working on innovative ways to develop, implement, and
institutionalize P–16 reform for approximately a decade. Unlike most states
engaged in this work, Georgia created both state and regional P–16 governance
entities. At the state level, it has a statewide P–16 council called the Education
Coordinating Council (ECC), which has had particularly strong gubernatorial
support from the administrations of former governors Zell Miller and Roy
Barnes. At the more local level, it has regional and local P–16 councils.
In addition to these efforts, there are scores of cross-sector projects in
the state focusing on issues such as teacher preparation and professional
development, standards development across the systems, and proficiencybased
teaching and learning. The major drivers pushing this P–16 work are
efforts to improve students’ academic achievement and college preparation,
and efforts to keep the best college students in-state.
The Governance Divide
15
State governance of education is divided between K–12 and postsecondary
education. For K–12 schools, the Department of Education is governed by the
State Board of Education, headed by the state superintendent of schools, an
elected official. There are 13 board
members—one from each
congressional district—appointed by
the governor. In terms of four-year
universities, the Board of Regents
governs the University System of
Georgia (USG); it is a constitutional
board comprised of members who
are appointed to seven-year terms
by the governor. The board elects a
chancellor, who serves as its chief
executive officer and the chief
administrative officer of the USG. The
Department of Technical and Adult
Education (DTAE) oversees the state’s
system of technical colleges, the adult
literacy program, and many economic
and workforce development
programs. The department is
governed by the State Board for
Technical and Adult Education.
P–16 efforts have the support of state legislation; staff dedicated to P–16
issues has an official office within the USG. Gubernatorial support has lent
the P–16 issue momentum, a degree of institutionalization, and visibility. The
beginning of the P–16 efforts in Georgia traces back to when the Regents’ Office
(under then-Chancellor Stephen Portch), Governor Miller, and other education
entities began to have informal talks about connecting the systems.
In 2000, Governor Barnes signed legislation that created the now dormant
Education Coordinating Council (ECC)—the statewide P–16 council—and
served as chair. The development of the ECC was an instance in which: (1)
a state legislated the meeting of representatives from each public education
sector; (2) the entity was given a set of priorities; and (3) a governor officially
GEORGIA STATE CONTEXT
Share of State Appropriations
K–12 receives 26%.
Higher education receives 27%.
Legislative Committee Structure*
Senate
Education Committee.
Higher Education Committee.
Appropriations Committee (has 9
subcommittees, including separate K–12
and higher education subcommittees).
Finance Committee.
House
Education Committee.
Higher Education Committee.
Appropriations Committee.
Ways and Means Committee.
* This list is not exhaustive.
16
The Governance Divide
led the charge. In addition to the governor, the other members of the council are:
the state superintendent of schools, the chair of the State Board of Education,
the chancellor of the University System of Georgia, the chair of the Board of
Regents, the commissioner of the Department of Technical and Adult Education,
the chair of the State Board of Technical and Adult Education, the executive
secretary of the Professional Standards Commission, the chair of the Professional
Standards Commission, and the director of the Office of School Readiness.
Georgia has instituted some components that bridge the sectors, including
the HOPE Scholarship (geared toward keeping students in-state for college and
improving preparation), dual enrollment, and systemwide admission and
placement testing in USG universities.
The regents’ P–16 Office has numerous projects focused on P–16 reform.
For example, Georgia has several state-level teacher preparation initiatives,
such as: the regents’ Principles for the Preparation of Teachers, Principals, and
Counselors; the Reading Consortium; the Teacher Preparation Recruitment
Initiative; and the Leadership Institute for School Improvement. Efforts that
are more student-centered tend to be more project-based, with the exception
of the P–16 Data Mart—an effort of the University System of Georgia to
improve student achievement and educator preparation. This project involves
developing a series of subject-area data marts designed to address the
informational and reporting needs of P–16 and its partners.
Major student-centered projects include: the Post-Secondary Readiness
Enrichment Program (an institutionally based, supplemental program focused
on increasing college readiness for students in grades 7 through 12 in at-risk
situations); the Partnership for Reform in Science and Mathematics (a project
funded by the National Science Foundation to improve math and science
achievement for K–12 students); and Performance Assessment for Colleges
and Technical Schools (PACTS). Modeled after Oregon’s Proficiency-Based
Admission Standards System, PACTS seeks to change the focus of student
preparation for college from seat-time and courses taken to a proficiency
model that focuses on student learning and knowledge.
For more information, see The Governance Divide: The Case Study for Georgia at
www.highereducation.org.
The Governance Divide
17
NEW YORK GOVERNANCE AND REFORM
History and tradition are important factors in education governance and politics
in New York. The state’s education governance structures are inherently Pre-
K–16, with a history dating to 1784, when the Board of Regents was created
by several of the nation’s Founding Fathers. This lends the regents a stature
and a fixed historical legitimacy and tradition unlike any other state education
governance structure in the nation. Over 100 years ago, the State Superintendent’s
Office merged with the Board of Regents, and the Department of
Education became the administrative arm for both sectors; it is all one system.
The overall structure of New York’s education governance systems has changed
little since its inception.
The main umbrella entity that oversees every segment of education in the
state, and many cultural entities as well, is the University of the State of New
York (USNY). USNY includes all pre-K, K–12, and postsecondary institutions
and systems, as well as libraries,
museums, public radio and television,
and other organizations. Within
USNY, the Department of Education
serves as the administrative unit for
the regents, and the commissioner is
chosen by the regents to implement
its policies. The commissioner is
both the president of USNY and
commissioner of education.
Traditionally, the commissioner
focuses more time and energy on K–12
than on postsecondary education.
The regents set education policy
for New York and serve as the
Board of Directors for USNY. The
Legislature appoints the regents, and
all members have one vote—meaning
that the much larger and Democratic-controlled Assembly carries more weight
than does the Republican-controlled Senate. In practice, the regents have
typically been appointed by the Democratic majority of the Assembly. There are
NEW YORK STATE CONTEXT
Share of State Appropriations
K–12 receives 24%.
Higher education receives 20%.
Legislative Committee Structure*
Senate
Education Committee.
Higher Education Committee.
Finance Committee (separate budgets for
education and higher education).
House
Education Committee.
Higher Education Committee.
Ways and Means Committee (separate budgets
for education and higher education).
* This list is not exhaustive.
18
The Governance Divide
16 regents—one from each judicial district and four at-large—and they each
have five-year terms. There is no requirement for an even-party split. The
governor does not participate in the selection or confirmation of appointments.
The partisan nature of education is deeply embedded in the structure
and long historical traditions of New York’s education systems. For several
administrations, the governor has been Republican, and relationships between
the governor and the regents, the governor and the commissioner, and the
governor and the Department of Education have been contentious. The
governor appoints the board of the State University of New York (SUNY).
Consequently, SUNY and the regents are often at odds. In New York, politics
often seem to derail many opportunities for significant change.
The regents oversee the Regents Exams—assessments that traditionally
have connected K–12 and postsecondary education by testing students on
knowledge and skills needed to enter postsecondary institutions in New York.
The current commissioner changed the content of the Regents Exams, and the
state now requires all students to pass five Regents Exams in order to graduate
from high school. In addition, the Regents Exams now offer two diplomas: a
regular diploma signifying high school graduation, and an advanced diploma
certifying that the student passed the exams at a high level.
In terms of K–16 programs in New York, the department has an Office of
K–16 Initiatives and Access Programs that administers over $115 million in
grants, contracts, and scholarships, and oversees the following divisions: Pre-
Collegiate Preparation Programs, Collegiate and Professional Development
Programs, and Scholarships and Grants Administration.
The State University of New York, or SUNY, is the largest comprehensive
university system in the United States. In 2004, SUNY institutions served
more than 400,000 students in 6,688 degree and certificate programs on its 64
campuses.34 SUNY institutions conduct their own K–16 programs in the areas of
teacher preparation, teacher professional development, and student outreach.
In addition, many SUNY institutions receive state or federal funds for K–16
programs (for example, Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act funds).
Because of the diversity of missions and institutions within SUNY, and the
decentralized nature of the system, little K–16 reform is spearheaded by the
SUNY System Office.
The Governance Divide
19
The City University of New York (CUNY), on the other hand, has established
some well-known K–16 projects, policies, and programs. In the wake of a 1999
report that found that over 50% of CUNY’s first-year students failed more than
one remedial class, CUNY eliminated remediation on its four-year campuses.
CUNY uses a score of 75 or above on the Regents Exams to place students into
college-level work. CUNY’s best-known K–16 project is College Now, a 20-year
collaborative with the New York Public Schools geared toward improving high
school students’ academic achievement and ensuring that they graduate ready
to do college-level academic work. There are three main components of College
Now: dual enrollment, curriculum development, and workshops and related
activities with postsecondary staff. Seventeen CUNY institutions and over 200
public schools participate.
College Now is funded and staffed entirely from the CUNY system. This
helps buffer CUNY from pressure from both the New York Public Schools and
the Legislature. College Now is housed within Academic Affairs, rather than
Student Services, in order to give it more respect and clout.
For more information, see The Governance Divide: The Case Study for New York
at www.highereducation.org.
OREGON GOVERNANCE AND REFORM
Over the past 13 years, Oregon has embarked upon several ambitious K–16-
related initiatives. The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) and its higher
education counterpart, the Oregon University System (OUS), have each led
and collaborated on several major reforms. While the reforms resided within
specific educational agencies, much work was done to connect high-school-tocollege
elements.
From a governance perspective, the State Board of Education, whose
members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature,
oversees the ODE. The board is comprised of seven members who are
appointed by the governor for up to two four-year terms. The state superintendent
of schools is a nonpartisan elected official. Governance for the
state’s 17 community colleges is also under the auspices of the State Board
of Education. The community colleges are currently and historically a
decentralized group; there is no community college system in Oregon. The
community colleges have never had much policymaking clout in Oregon, and
are often not at the table, or even considered, when K–16-related policies are
20
The Governance Divide
made. When the original legislation for the CIM (Certificate of Initial Mastery,
issued after grade 10) and the CAM (Certificate of Advanced Mastery, issued
after grade 12) passed, and in the early years that followed, many viewed
the Department of Education as a
relatively regulatory- and compliancefocused
organization. In reaction to
this, and because of its concerns over
the content of the CIM and CAM, the
University System took an active role
in developing and promoting K–16
reform.
The University System is
governed by the Oregon State Board
of Higher Education, whose members
are appointed by the governor. Nine
members have four-year terms and
two have two-year terms. The current
governor reconstituted the board
and all the members are new. The
chancellor of the University System
serves as CEO and is appointed by
the State Board of Higher Education.
The president of each campus reports
through the chancellor to the board.
There is a K–16 governance entity in Oregon, but it is not established by
statute. The Joint Boards, which represent the boards of education and higher
education, provide a forum for K–12, community college, and University
System representatives to meet and talk about common issues and concerns.
The main initiative the Joint Boards have overseen is the Articulation
Commission. The Joint Boards monitored the implementation and revision
of the Associate of Arts Oregon Transfer degree policy and common course
numbering for lower-division courses.
Traditionally, education policymaking in Oregon is decentralized and
entrepreneurial in nature. The Governor’s Office does not usually play a direct
role in education reform; however, the current governor appears to be more
active than most.
OREGON STATE CONTEXT
Share of State Appropriations
K–12 receives 11%.
Higher education receives 15%.
Legislative Committee Structure*
Senate
Education Committee has jurisdiction over
K–12 and higher education.
House
Education Committee has jurisdiction over
K–12 and higher education.
Joint
Ways and Means Subcommittee on Education
has jurisdiction over K–12 and higher
education.
Special Legislative Committee on Public
Education Appropriation is focused on K–12.
* This list is not exhaustive.
The Governance Divide
21
In terms of specific reforms, the Oregon Educational Act for the 21st
Century in 1991, and the later amendment to that act in 1995, marked the
beginning of a sustained period of education reform in Oregon. The act
authorized the development of benchmarks for all students; assessments in
grades 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12; the CIM (issued after grade 10); and the CAM (issued
after grade 12). The legislation did not call for the CIM or the CAM to be
connected to college entrance or placement requirements.
In reaction to the 1991 K–12 legislation, the Oregon University System
developed the Proficiency-Based Admission Standards System (PASS) to
develop proficiency-based admission standards for college-level academic
work, move the admission process for Oregon’s public universities toward
proficiencies, and ensure that entering college students meet a high standard of
academic preparation prior to matriculation. For years, the University System
led collaborative efforts between the PASS and the CIM; recently, the tables
turned, and the Department of Education is now driving much of the remaining
collaboration. Although the CIM and CAM are in statute, PASS is not, and much
of this work has been done with little state support in terms of high-level
leadership or funding.
It appears that some of the hopes for PASS have been tempered, given its
rocky development and implementation, and the recent finance and governance
crises affecting the state. On a positive note, however, OUS and Department
of Education staffs aligned the content standards for grades 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12
with the PASS proficiencies. Currently, approximately one-third of PASS
proficiencies are embedded in the CIM assessment. PASS has also altered the
CAM; in order to earn a CAM, students need to have a collection of evidence
(to demonstrate proficiency) that uses the same rules as the collection of
evidence requirement for PASS. To fulfill the CAM requirement, students can
have college-based credit through the PASS standards or career learning for
the CAM. As a result, the CIM, the CAM, and PASS are all interlocked—even
if PASS itself, as an admission system, does not have as big an impact as was
intended originally.
Other K–16 work in the state has included the ongoing development of an
integrated data system, dual enrollment, GEAR-UP, and teacher education
reforms.
For more information, see The Governance Divide: The Case Study for Oregon
at www.highereducation.org.
22
The Governance Divide
IV. Primary Findings
Recent national efforts that have highlighted the need for K–16 reforms—
such as the National Education Summit on High Schools and Accountability
for Better Results by the National Commission on Accountability in Higher
Education—are promising in raising awareness about K–16 issues and
in providing political impetus for change. The primary findings of the
Partnerships for Student Success research are in accord with the Summit’s
recommendation that all states should “create a permanent Education
Roundtable or Commission to foster coordination between early childhood,
K–12, and higher education.”35
At the same time, our findings—together with a wealth of policy and
research work36—suggest that convening a commission or holding cross-sector
discussions is necessary but not sufficient for reform. To be lasting and effective,
K–16 deliberations must be anchored in policy and infrastructure reform. These
bodies should be charged with specific responsibilities, provided the requisite
resources, have enough influence and authority to make real change, and be
held accountable for performance. State agency collaboration—both in terms of
the content of work and the organizational structures supporting that work—is
essential, and having components of K–16 reform in statute appears to be useful
but not sufficient for creating change.37 State-level efforts can support, spur, and
hold accountable reforms at the local and regional levels, so that improvements
can be achieved across the state to create deep and lasting changes within
schools and classrooms.
Our findings also suggest that this work needs to be comprehensive; K–16
reforms cannot be truly effective if they are instituted by addition—that is, by
simply grafting new programs onto existing policies that divide the levels.
Traditionally, states, systems, schools, and postsecondary institutions have
responded to student needs by adding new policies and programs while
maintaining existing policy structures. In order for all students to be affected
To be lasting
and effective,
K–16
deliberations
must be
anchored in
policy and
infrastructure
reform.
The Governance Divide
23
by the reforms, however, states must move beyond these limited approaches to
adopt more lasting and ambitious changes to their underlying K–16 structures.
As Virginia Governor Mark Warner summed up some of the difficulties by
stating:
How do you more systematically connect K–12 and higher
education? [We’re all familiar with] the silo approach where they
don’t seem to talk at all and there is no connectivity between
K–12 and higher ed. We talk a lot about K–16 or K–20. How do
we make sure that we don’t just help our high school students
who come from the high-performing, well-off jurisdictions?
How do we make sure those kids from the more rural, the
harder-to-staff schools, can make the transition to additional
learning in one form or another?38
The findings in this section focus on actions, structures, and policy levers
that have the potential to effect change in every classroom in a state. As these
findings reveal, the responsibility for reform cannot be carried by one sector,
but rather must be shared across systems to reach common ground, focusing
on improving K–12 and postsecondary education for all students.
STATE-LEVEL LEADERSHIP AND COLLABORATION
Establishing and empowering organizational structures that can transcend the existing
educational sectors is essential in promoting K–16 reforms. Leadership at the state level
is of crucial importance in sustaining long-term change.
Respondents in all four states emphasized that establishing organizational
structures that can transcend educational sectors is crucial in building and
sustaining K–16 reforms. As New York demonstrates, however, if there is no
high-level K–16 advocate, there will be no real state-level K–16 agenda to
pursue. Oregon was able to create much positive change behind the scenes,
but respondents stated that they would have been more successful in
institutionalizing the Proficiency-Based Admission Standards System (PASS)
if a governor or legislative leader had encouraged public support and promoted
efforts to create changes in statute. Oregon’s PASS leaders had pinned their
hopes to the CIM (the 10th grade initial mastery exam) becoming a more highstakes
test. The CIM never became a high stakes test. They believed that the
Respondents in
all four states
emphasized that
establishing
organizational
structures that
can transcend
educational
sectors is crucial.
24
The Governance Divide
CIM would become mandatory for high school graduation and, if PASS were
attached to the CIM, then it too would become a standard component of
students’ curricula. This led to successful alignment efforts between the CIM
and PASS that will sustain components of PASS in Oregon’s high school
curricula, but the miscalculation might not have occurred if PASS had
developed as a central part of Oregon’s educational policymaking.
Much of Georgia’s success in the P–16 arena appears to be due to extensive
groundwork laid by former governors, in addition to the dedicated followthrough
and innovation of the regents’ P–16 staff. The now-dormant statutory
K–16 structure, the Education Coordinating Council, does not appear to be able
to transcend the state’s political and educational cultures, but there appears to
be enough ongoing momentum to continue the P–16 agenda.
When this research was conducted, Florida was in the process of connecting
its new education governance structure with existing policies. Florida created
enormous fragmentation by establishing local postsecondary boards; this
structure will complicate the development and implementation of a state-level
K–20 agenda. Respondents in the state indicated that there are now too many
committees and too much governance clutter. The inconsistencies between
centralized and decentralized education governance will need to be resolved
if the K–20 agenda is to be successful.
The fractured and often competitive nature of existing education
governance structures can be a major impediment to K–16 reform. Some states,
such as Georgia, have more than one postsecondary education system, while
other states, such as Oregon, have only one. Almost every state has some form
of state board of higher education, but the ways these bodies interact with
institutions of higher education and K–12 systems depend upon the history and
culture of each state. To be successful in establishing K–16 reform, governors and
legislative committees must move beyond the traditional divide between K–12
and postsecondary education and address public education as a continuum of
related issues and needs. At a minimum, states must have staff and funds that
are dedicated to K–16 reform efforts.
STATE CULTURE AND HISTORY
An understanding of the state’s culture and history is essential in creating lasting
change. For this reason, a one-size-fits-all model will not work in developing K–16
reforms. Nonetheless, the culture and history of a state do not create insurmountable
barriers to the establishment of such reforms.
The Governance Divide
25
Even though New York’s education system was designed hundreds of years ago
to include K–16 education institutions, it has fewer innovative K–16 reforms than
do the other three states in the study. This may be partly due to its long history
of divisive politics, the lack of strong gubernatorial investment or power with
regard to education, and related issues. In embarking upon K–16 reform, states
need a clear understanding of their own political and educational cultures. In
many cases, it may make sense to begin with real policy change (for example, in
finance, assessments and curricula, accountability, or data collection) and let the
organizational and structural components evolve from those changes. Sustained
reform, however, will not occur if the educational systems remain disconnected.
As Michael Kirst and Andrea Venezia suggest, states might find it useful
to initiate K–16 reform efforts by asking themselves the following kinds of
questions:| Are your state’s K–12 academic content standards similar to the
academic content in first-year courses at public colleges and
universities?| Does your state’s K–12 assessment ask students to know and be able to
do the same things that are required by your state’s public colleges and
universities for admission and placement into college-level work?| Does your state have a statewide postsecondary education placement
exam? If not, how do individual institutions’ tests relate to each other
or to the content of the state’s exit-level high school assessment? How
can your state consistently assess its needs regarding postsecondary
remediation? How can students understand what is expected of them
when they start college-level work? How can K–12 educators gauge the
appropriate level of their college preparation courses?| Do your schools have a sufficient number of counselors whose main role
is to advise students about college options?| Do all students have early and repeated access to college preparation
information?| How affordable are your public colleges and universities?| Do your colleges and universities have outreach programs that connect
with local schools and districts? Are these outreach programs
coordinated with national, state, and nonprofit outreach programs? Are
the programs evaluated using comparison groups of students who did
not participate in the programs?
26
The Governance Divide| Are there course articulation agreements between your state’s public
universities, community colleges, and high schools?| Can your state agencies (K–12 and postsecondary) link their databases
in order to assess needs throughout the K–16 continuum? Can policymakers
and researchers tell whether there are inequalities in terms
of who enters and graduates from college? Can they address college
preparation issues by tracking student success in higher education by
district or school? Can your state measure persistence rates among
different types of students and determine which students drop out of
college and when they do so?| Does your statewide accountability system hold high schools
accountable for offering college preparatory courses, including
Advanced Placement courses? Does it hold postsecondary education
institutions accountable for graduating their students?| Is there a stable or permanent entity or mechanism that allows K–12 and
postsecondary education stakeholders to work together and overcome
fragmentation concerning policy alignment, faculty interaction, and
information systems across the sectors?39
Engaging representatives from relevant educational sectors, business
groups, and governmental agencies can be useful in discussing these kinds of
issues. These deliberations can assist in identifying the breakdowns between
the current systems, building upon the unique cultural and historical strengths
in the state, and establishing common ground for moving forward with
significant reform.
INCENTIVES FOR K–16 REFORM
As states seek to engage K–12 and higher education systems in more ambitious levels of
K–16 reform, they should consider and put in place broad-based and deeply embedded
incentives to achieve this aim. The policy levers described later in this section—
particularly in the areas of finance and accountability—provide examples of such
incentive structures.
One of the most important and difficult issues that states must tackle is creating
the motivation for systems, institutions, and people to change. Haycock
describes two primary ways to create incentives for K–16 collaboration:
One of the most
important and
difficult issues
that states must
tackle is creating
the motivation
for systems,
institutions,
and people
to change.
The Governance Divide
27
The first, and probably the most popular, is to put dollars on the
table for joint K–16 work. Those dollars can be made conditional
on the creation of a K–16 governance structure and/or on the
willingness to undertake particular action… The alternative is to
approach this issue through the lens of accountability. The core
idea is simple: policymakers should design their accountability
systems for both K–12 and higher education to include outcomes
that each system cannot possibly deliver alone… This approach
has the advantage of getting the close attention of institutional
leaders and forcing collaborative activity closer to the top of
institutional priorities.40
Haycock suggests that while money can help motivate institutions
to engage in reform more promptly, it is important to avoid the type of
programmatic allocations that keep K–16 reform on the margins of institutional
missions. There is little incentive, for example, for an institution to work with
K–12 to reduce the number of students who require remediation because those
students bring with them valuable funds. Agood strategy, she suggests, is
combining financial and accountability incentives: to “use the ‘push’ of a
reconstructed accountability system together with the ‘pull’ of recaptured
funding for institutional or departmental priorities.”41
In contrast, most of the K–16 reforms we analyzed in the four states relied
in large part on people’s desire to “do the right thing” for students. Many
interviewees said that it would be beneficial for postsecondary institutions if
students were better prepared academically when they enrolled in college. In
each of the states studied, however, many postsecondary institutions had larger
potential student enrollment levels than existing capacity to meet that demand.
None of the states had created major positive incentive structures—that is,
carrots instead of sticks—for collaborative work between K–12 and higher
education. Although the states had taken steps to establish small incentive
structures, these structures were targeted to specific areas and were not deeply
embedded in the systems. For example, Florida helps to pay for buildings on
community college campuses that are used collaboratively by the college and
a four-year institution. Although the state is working to create a larger system
of performance-based incentives, this work is still in its infancy. In Georgia,
28
The Governance Divide
both K–12 and postsecondary education institutions receive funding for dual
enrollment courses. This is rare, since most states view this as a form of doubledipping
and try to ensure that both systems do not receive full funds for
enrolling these students. In Oregon, the incentives for K–16 collaboration derive
primarily from the state’s reforms of its 10th and 12th grade exams (the CIM
and CAM) to promote better student preparation for postsecondary education.
Part of the challenge in creating broader, more deeply embedded incentive
structures can be traced to public finance and accountability mechanisms that
traditionally are focused on either K–12 schools or postsecondary education,
and that rarely span both systems. In addition, state budget shortfalls during
the time of this research study have made it more difficult for states to develop
and implement finance-based incentives. Nonetheless, the long-term success of
K–16 reform depends to a large extent on states’ abilities to create and sustain
incentives for K–12 and postsecondary education systems to collaborate more
effectively to meet the needs of students.
POLICY LEVERS STATES CAN USE TO CREATE CHANGE
Our research findings suggest that there are four key policy levers that are
particularly promising for states that are interested in promoting K–16 reform:
curricula and assessments, finance, data systems, and accountability. Each of
these policy levers can have significant impacts on students. For example, K–16
finance structures can provide an incentive mechanism to reduce territorialism
and systems’ self-preservation efforts, and thereby focus efforts on students.
Currently, high school assessments and curricula in most states are not
connected with postsecondary assessments and curricula, which is confusing
for students and impedes their abilities to prepare for college. While every state
either has or is working to develop an accountability system for K–12 schools
(and some have accountability indicators or systems for postsecondary
education), very few states have established K–16 accountability systems. Our
research suggests that states need an accountability structure for K–16 reform so
that educational institutions can focus more effectively on student progress and
completion. Finally, data systems seem far removed from students, but in fact
they can provide states with the information they must have in order to address
student needs and learn where, and which, students are falling through the
cracks. In addition, data systems can help states understand whether their
reforms are having the intended effects on students.
There are four
key policy levers
for promoting
K–16 reform:
curricula and
assessments,
finance, data
systems, and
accountability.
The Governance Divide
29
Alignment of Curricula and Assessments
States need to make sure that what students are asked to know and do in high school
is connected to postsecondary expectations—both in coursework and assessments.
Currently, students in most states graduate from high school under one set of standards
and face a disconnected and different set of expectations in college. Many students enter
college unable to perform college-level work.
While most states have some kind of high school graduation standards, they are
usually not aligned with postsecondary entrance and placement standards. As
David Conley indicates, “The challenge is to connect high school instruction and
state testing more directly with measures of college success.”42 For example, most
states’ high school assessment programs end with 10th grade exams that are not
linked to what students need to know and be able to do to place into collegelevel
courses. Students are left believing that their 10th grade assessments and
curricular standards are what they need in order to succeed in college.
Defining what students need to know and be able to do in college is a
difficult task—especially if a state has institutions with a wide variety of
missions (e.g. community colleges, technical institutions, liberal arts institutions,
and large universities). The National Education Summit on High Schools
addressed this issue by recommending that states: (1) define a rigorous college
preparatory curriculum for high school graduation, (2) give college readiness
assessments in high school, (3) create common course agreements so that
college-level work in high school counts toward a postsecondary credential,
(4) provide financial incentives for economically disadvantaged students to
take Advanced Placement exams and college preparatory courses, (5) expand
college-level learning opportunities in high school to students who are
traditionally under-represented in postsecondary education, (6) design literacy
and math recovery programs, and (7) develop and fund supports to help
students pass their high school exit exam(s).43
Georgia, Oregon, and New York have all taken curricular- or assessmentbased
approaches to K–16 reform, and much of Florida’s previous K–16 efforts
were in this area. Georgia is working to develop math and science standards
across the P–16 continuum, as well as end-of-course tests for high school.
30
The Governance Divide
Oregon has spent much of its K–16 resources on ensuring that the proficiencies
in its new admission standards system (PASS) are embedded in its 10th and
12th grade assessments (the CIM and CAM). The state conducted perhaps the
most in-depth work of the four states to determine the knowledge and skills
its universities look for in entering students. However, PASS does not offer
students tangible incentives (e.g., financial aid or placement into college-level
work). New York’s Regents Exams have historically been the connective tissue
between K–12 and postsecondary education. Many interviewees in New York
were concerned, however, that the exams have changed dramatically under the
current commissioner and that the regular diploma does not indicate that a
student is college-ready (the advanced diploma does indicate college-readiness).
In Florida, the K–12 exam (the FCAT) does not assess the knowledge and
skills required to enter and succeed in the state’s postsecondary institutions.
Students must pass the FCAT to graduate from high school, but it is a 10th
grade exam. Florida’s Bright Futures program, on the other hand, does provide
an incentive for students to take college preparatory courses. One concern
voiced in the state, however, is that Bright Futures reaffirms incentives to take
college preparatory classes among those students who are already planning to
go to college, rather than creating incentives for students who traditionally do
not attend college. There are not many incentives to take college preparatory
classes for those students who plan to go to community colleges or other similar
broad-access institutions.
Although there have been discussions in Oregon and New York about
using high school test data for college placement, no state policies have been
developed in that area.
Finance
State education finance systems must become K–16; this includes the legislative
committees and staff functions that oversee finance and budgetary decisions. If education
finance can span education systems, it has the potential to drive change in many other
policy arenas as well.
State finance structures can be used to pull systems of education together. While
some of the states we studied had financial incentives for K–16 reform, none of
them truly had a K–16 system of funding that reduced territorialism and friction
The Governance Divide
31
between the sectors. AGeorgia state agency representative summed up most
people’s thoughts across the four states by stating:
Education is very bifurcated in this state and so there are definite
little fiefdoms. The Board of Regents has their own little world
and K–12 has its own little world, and pre-K has its own little
world, and for funding reasons there is not a lot of incentive for
those individual agencies to work together. [Former Governor]
Barnes didn’t really add a lot of incentives and the current
governor so far has not done that, either.
As David Longanecker writes, “Using finance as intentional policy to
achieve specific public goals is a relatively new concept in American higher
education.” He lists four models of performance funding for postsecondary
education currently in use; none of them focus on connecting K–12 and
postsecondary funding streams. Those models are: “skimming” for marginal
funding; rewarding excellent programs; doing all or nothing (providing funds
on the basis of achieving purposeful goals); and “pretending” to connect budget
and performance. He contends that postsecondary institutions and systems
need financial incentives for student completion and retention, additional
resources for “difficult-to-serve students,” and rewards when students finish
their individual courses and their full courses of study.44
Georgia made a very promising finance decision by allowing both K–12
and postsecondary institutions to receive funding for dual enrollment. We saw
few other examples of true K–16 finance-related decisions in the areas of joint
budgeting, incentives for student retention or persistence, student course
completion, and so forth. In addition, we did not see financial incentives geared
toward non-college-bound students to encourage them to plan and prepare for
college.
Within New York’s and Florida’s combined governance structures lie
traditional funding streams that serve to create divisions between systems. In
Florida, a major problem with the previous education system was the lack of
consultation or coordination between sectors with regard to the budget. Part of
the rationale behind the K–20 system was that the sectors would plan together
and that the state would have a unified budget for the K–20 system, as opposed
State finance
structures can
be used to pull
systems of
education
together.
32
The Governance Divide
to three distinct budgets that promote competition rather than collaboration
among the sectors. Currently, there is a new board that develops a K–20 budget;
the hope was that the board would help reduce territorialism regarding
allocation of funds across the sectors. As a state representative stated, however:
That competition still exists—particularly now that we’ve got
the budget deficits that we have. We’ve got universities out there
now looking out for universities and trying to get their funding
restored and…the public schools are crying because they don’t
have adequate resources to do their job. So that competition still
exists. It has not gone away completely, practically. Theoretically,
yes…but for all practical reasons, the same situation exists as
before with each system kind of looking out for itself.
Others concurred with this view. Although the governance structure has
changed, the budget remains divided in traditional revenue streams.
In New York, the Education Department and the regents have experienced
cuts in state funding and personnel, partly because of disagreements with the
governor and Legislature. The cuts are not necessarily transparent. As a Senate
staff member said, “You won’t see a decrease, but there are chokeholds put in
throughout the system. An appropriation can be made and no money flows
unless the executive branch okays the budget.” Thus, the regents’ purview as an
overarching K–16 entity does not necessarily diminish competition or political
wrangling for funds.
It is telling that we did not find many changes in the area of finance and
budgeting. This is a very entrenched area, structurally, given the different
committees that oversee state appropriations. New initiatives in a time of
budget crises and constraints will be difficult, and the necessary changes likely
will not come from K–12 or postsecondary education alone. They will need
to be driven by strong state-level leadership, perhaps with support from the
business community.
Data Systems
States must create high-quality data systems that span the K–16 continuum. K–16 data
systems should identify good practices, diagnose problems, provide information about
all education levels, provide students with diagnostic information to help them prepare
better, assess and improve achievement, and track individual students over time across
The Governance Divide
33
levels. Without such systems, it is impossible to assess needs effectively, understand
where the problems are, gain traction for changes needed, and evaluate reforms.
In many states, the data systems in existence today for education were created
to provide reports and audit expenditures, not to meet accountability and
assessment demands—particularly those associated with K–16 reforms, such as
documenting student achievement across the education systems and identifying
systemic barriers. Hans L’Orange explains that establishing statewide goals for
education is crucial in creating effective data systems to measure student success:
Determining the goals for the entire state, regardless of sector,
should be addressed early in the process of developing a data
system. Sectors often act independently, potentially at crosspurposes
with one another. Identifying common goals and
providing a means for the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary
sectors to work together addresses some of the “turf”
issues that inevitably arise.45
L’Orange states that effective K–16 data and accountability systems should:
(1) identify good practices, (2) diagnose problems, (3) inform people about the
condition of education at all levels, (4) help students master necessary material
to prepare for college, (5) help assess and improve achievement, and (6) follow
individual students across levels and over time. He proposes that a shared data
system would require shared responsibility; it should either have explicitly
mandated cost-sharing or a separate funding mechanism.46
The Action Agenda of the National Education Summit highlighted the need
for states, “to dramatically improve their ability to collect, coordinate, and use
secondary and postsecondary data.”47 The National Center for Educational
Accountability found that nine states collect student-level data on high school
course completion; six states collect data for results on SAT, ACT, and Advanced
Placement exams; fewer than ten states link their K–12 student records with
postsecondary enrollment; and eight states have available information about
student remediation in postsecondary education.48 The lack of information
available suggests that data tracking is a problem nationwide.
The development of integrated data systems is a political as well as a
technical process, fraught with potential landmines along the way. Georgia,
Florida, and Oregon are in the stages of designing or implementing integrated
data systems; New York has begun discussions in this area.
34
The Governance Divide
In Georgia, interviewees said that building an effective data system cannot
succeed if someone addresses the need head-on. As one interviewee stated,
“Just to stand out there and say, ‘We need this P–16 database that’s got to have
all of this stuff [in it],’ I mean, I wouldn’t live long enough to see it through.”
Consequently, state education staff members are taking their time, letting
people get used to the idea by showing useful results, and slowly building the
database. Respondents indicated that it is important to ensure that the staff
members developing the database have credibility with each of the sectors
and use a nonthreatening model. Nonetheless, there are many difficulties to
overcome along the way. For example, the various agencies involved have not
agreed upon the definition of a high school dropout. Astudent could transfer
districts, but be counted as a dropout if the first district could not find that
student. Also, the agency databases do not always have the data elements
needed to answer essential questions. When the regents’ P–16 Office first started
working on a P–16 database, staff members could not find data on students’
high school course-taking patterns. In order to examine college readiness, they
could only tell what kind of diploma a student had: college prep, tech prep,
or special education. The Department of Education had separate testing and
student databases, and the student database used social security numbers
while the testing database used names, so the two could not be linked together.
There are also some concerns that the course placement data for the University
System and the Department of Technical and Adult Education (DTAE) are not
particularly reliable or valid.
Florida is well-known for connecting its data systems for K–12 education,
postsecondary education, workforce training, corrections, and other areas. The
original reason why the databases were developed was to lay the foundation
for education funding. For example, K–12 schools are allocated money based
primarily on their full-time-equivalent enrollment, and those data are collected
by the Department of Education.
The department has three K–12 databases: one that contains all K–12
students, a second that tracks students who earn a GED, and a third that tracks
students based on their scores on the K–12 assessment (the FCAT). Community
college data are more difficult to use at the aggregate level because the sector is
relatively decentralized and has little control over the data collection activities of
individual campuses. Adata warehouse being developed by the Department of
The Governance Divide
35
Education connects all of these data and gives each student one identification
number. The department safeguards the data by trying, for example, to avoid
allowing schools, districts, or postsecondary institutions to calculate any
tabulated statistics from data reported to the state.
The Department of Education plans to be able to assess relationships
between K–12 programs and postsecondary education achievement, and
between teacher education programs and student achievement throughout the
K–20 continuum. Through this work, department staff members have been able
to assess postsecondary education completion rates and have plans to focus
on postsecondary retention. In order to learn more about their course-taking
patterns and other related issues, they have also begun tracking students who
took the FCAT.
Like Georgia, Oregon does not have significant funding allocated for an
integrated data system. In 1997, the Legislature passed HB 3636, which directed
the Department of Education to update the K–12 school budget and accounting
system in order to produce comparable spending information for districts and
schools. To fulfill the mandate of the legislation, the department is working
closely with the University System to oversee the Database Initiative Project.
As a first step, staff members are developing a conceptual framework with a
K–16 focus to guide the development of the data system. Currently, K–12 and
postsecondary education have their own data systems, and much of K–12 data
are on paper—not in electronic files. There are concerns that performance-based
assessment will not survive if the data cannot be moved quickly and efficiently;
staff members are hoping that a more effective and comprehensive data system
will promote the continued use of the 10th and 12th grade assessments (the CIM
and CAM).
Accountability
States need to connect their accountability systems for K–12 and postsecondary
education. Currently, accountability systems are usually designed for either K–12 or
postsecondary education without much attention to the interface between the two.
Accountability systems need to reflect, better, the reality of students’ educational paths.
Across the country, accountability for high schools is generally geared toward
graduation rates and proficiency on state assessments. There are very few
accountability systems in place for postsecondary education, and even fewer
36
The Governance Divide
that connect K–12 and postsecondary education. Historically, states and
localities have been viewed as the entities responsible for establishing goals for
and overseeing the performance of K–12 schools. At the postsecondary level,
however, students have been viewed as responsible for their own success
or failure in completing their educational programs. Given inequities and
systemic problems regarding persistence and completion rates in colleges and
universities, it makes sense to establish and monitor performance based on
measurable goals for higher education, and to require K–12 and postsecondary
education to work together toward common objectives. As the Action Agenda
for the National Education Summit on High Schools stated, “Governors,
business leaders, and secondary and postsecondary educators and officials
need to work together to set measurable goals for improving the performance
of high schools and colleges and universities.”49
Peter Ewell has indicated that the incentives inherent within current
accountability systems are not effective from a K–16 perspective. One
reasonable objective of a K–16 system, he suggests, would be to increase the
percentage of traditionally under-represented students who persist throughout
the education systems and complete some form of postsecondary education.
Currently, however, postsecondary institutions can improve completion rates
by becoming more selective in admissions (and thereby diminishing access) or
by reducing their standards (and thereby reducing the worth of a credential).
An effective accountability system spanning K–16 education, Ewell says, would
counteract those responses.50
Florida’s work to develop a K–20 accountability system made it unique
among the four states studied. According to several respondents, the state’s
accountability system is the driving force behind the K–20 reforms. As a DOE
administrator stated, one objective of the accountability system is to provide
“seamless, student-centered articulation so you don’t know whether you’re
being governed by public schools, community colleges, or universities.” The
official charge from the Legislature is to establish “a unified K–20 accountability
system that holds each education delivery sector responsible for high student
achievement; seamless articulation and access; a skilled workforce; and quality,
It makes sense
to establish and
monitor higher
education
performance
and to require
K–12 and
postsecondary
education to
work together.
The Governance Divide
37
efficient services. The legislation also requires…a performance-based funding
formula that applies accountability standards for the public education system
at every level, kindergarten through graduate school.”51
Ewell notes that there are three typical state policy mechanisms regarding
accountability: direct regulation, performance reporting, and performance
funding.52 In its K–20 accountability system, Florida is drawing from both
performance-based incentives and regulatory requirements. In establishing the
accountability mandates (in House Bill 915) the Legislature has called for 10%
of the education budget to be dedicated to performance-based funding.53 The
Department of Education has created four task forces that are working to
develop measures for each sector: K–12 schools, community colleges, workforce
training institutions, and universities. The task forces are seeking to measure
performance based on four goals across the sectors: high student achievement,
articulation and access, employment and earnings, and quality and efficiency.
An issue under consideration is the assessment used for postsecondary
education, both for students transferring from a community college to a fouryear
institution, and for students who first enroll in a four-year institution.
38
The Governance Divide
V. Conclusion
Education governance structures establish the overall framework through
which state education systems—including elected officials, policy leaders,
and system leaders—interact with each other, and in turn can shape and
influence the structures of governance. In addition, governance structures are
affected by state history and the political and educational cultures of the state.
Our research suggests that for states seeking to initiate and sustain K–16
reforms, governance does have a strong impact on the range of available
options. On the other hand, our study did not reveal a strong relationship
between a particular governance structure, the types of reforms in place, and
the ability of states to institutionalize the reforms. That is to say, governance
structures by themselves cannot carry the day in embarking upon and
supporting the processes of change. For more state policy examples and
recommendations, see the forthcoming report, Claiming Common Ground.
The complexity of state education governance, state context and history,
and the politics of education reform defy any simplistic or readymade K–16
solutions for states. For example, our research found that strong leadership
directed toward collaborative work—from elected officials, from those in state
agencies, and from those within and across state systems of higher education—
appears to make a significant difference in terms of creating the support and
energy necessary to move the agenda forward and create sustainable change.
We found that leadership can help create opportunities for reform, set
parameters, and embed policies in statute. Across the four states, the more
innovative K–16 reforms were dependent on leaders with a vision. Oregon, for
example, did not have a political leader who took charge, but it did have people
working within its state agencies who had a vision for change. That, combined
with the state’s decentralized nature and entrepreneurial ways, led to much
groundbreaking work. Georgia, on the other hand, had two strong governors
backing P–16 reform and the institutionalization of a governance structure at
the state level. The state also benefited from a chancellor and director of P–16
initiatives at the state level who promoted these efforts. The convergence of
Across the four
states, the more
innovative K–16
reforms were
dependent on
leaders with
a vision.
The Governance Divide
39
personalities at the right time and place led to innovative work at both the state
and regional levels.
As well as revealing the importance of leadership, our research suggests
that creating incentives for systems to work together—whether through finance
structures, accountability mechanisms, or other means—appears to be essential.
The research identified four key policy levers that are particularly promising
for states seeking to engage in K–16 reforms: assessment and curricula, finance,
data systems, and accountability. At the state level, the current structure of
legislative committees, in which oversight and finance is typically divided
between K–12 and postsecondary education subcommittees, appears to calcify
the existing disjunction between K–12 and postsecondary education, and to
make a shift toward K–16 systems of funding and accountability all the more
difficult.
Taken as a whole, our research suggests common tools that states can use to
embark upon K–16 reform. At the same time, it reveals that each state must seek
its own path, shaped by its leaders, its culture, its history, and its prospects for
change. For example, a state with a K–16 structure established by statute or by
extensive state history may appear to have a greater ability to develop and
implement necessary reforms than a state with ad hoc, grant-funded, K–16
projects. Yet New York, perhaps because of the politics of its education system
and its lack of leadership on K–16 issues, has less active and less extensive K–16
policies and programs than the other three states studied. Compared with New
York, states with more entrepreneurial, project-based environments such as
Georgia and Oregon have been able to achieve K–16 reforms without focusing
on governance per se. In Georgia, for example, Governors Miller and Barnes
successfully used the bully pulpit and other public means to create state and
regional P–16 councils that created active constituents and specific objectives
for cross-sector reforms. In Oregon, incentives—such as providing funding for
both K–12 and postsecondary education for dual enrollment—have helped to
overcome territorialism. Likewise, behind-the-scenes efforts within the state to
achieve curricular and assessment alignment reveal that improvements can be
made without toP–down leadership and statute-driven change.
In fact, working under the radar can be effective when the political support
is not sufficient to enact widespread changes in governance. In Oregon, for
example, state agency staff members working in K–12 and postsecondary
40
The Governance Divide
education, outside the limelight of state politics, were able to embed
proficiencies for college admission (PASS) into the state’s 10th grade
assessment (CIM).
This behind-the-scenes approach is vulnerable, however, because few funds
are typically allocated for such work, and since the work is not institutionalized
in statute, the efforts can dissipate over time. Another downside is that the
reforms are politically vulnerable—particularly if a new leader comes into
power. As we found in Georgia, the electoral defeat of Governor Barnes reduced
the impetus for P–16 reform in the state.
These findings suggest that having active leadership of K–16 reform
supported by statutory language and institutional change may be most
effective—when the political will for such across-the-board efforts is present.
The statutory language can create formal support for the endeavor, as well as
spur action. Interviewees in Oregon repeatedly stated that their work would be
farther along if proficiencies for college admission (PASS) had been mandated
by the state or connected to a mandated reform. Such a mandate, they said,
would bring the fiscal and institutional support necessary for more
comprehensive design and implementation.
Although implementing an effective state-level K–16 structure might not be
practicable politically, interviewees in Florida, Georgia, and Oregon emphasized
that it is nonetheless crucial to engage all relevant educational sectors in the
reform effort. For at least three of the states, representatives from all sectors
found ways to meet and deliberate together. The research also found that
when efforts are driven wholly by governmental entities or by postsecondary
education systems, the perception is that the changes are shaped too much from
above. While it is crucial to get support from elected officials and state agencies,
it is also important to reach out to teachers and others from the beginning in
order to promote ground-level involvement and support.
Much can be learned from the K–16 reforms in Florida, Georgia, New York,
and Oregon, but these are still works in progress. The efforts of these states
reveal effective practices and policies in a wide range of areas, but they also
illuminate how far the states need to go in combining policies, structures,
and programs across K–12 and postsecondary education to improve
student performance across a single, coherent system. It is time for states,
according to their own histories and traditions, to take the next step in finding
common ground.
The Governance Divide
41
Appendix
Education Performance in the Four States
This appendix provides information about postsecondary education
performance for each of the four states studied. As with state culture and
history, educational performance becomes an important context that helps to
clarify states’ diverse approaches to and needs for educational reform.54
FLORIDA
Preparation for College
High school completion: 84% (77% earn a diploma; 7% earn a GED)
9th to 12th graders taking at least one upper-level math course: 38%
9th to 12th graders taking at least one upper-level science course: 26%
8th graders taking algebra: 19%
Number of SAT/ACT scores in top 20% nationally per 1,000 high school
graduates: 164
Number of scores that are 3 or more on AP subject test per 1,000 high school
juniors and seniors: 179
Participation in College
Chance for college by age 19: 32%
18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in postsecondary education: 31%
Postsecondary Affordability
Percent of income needed to pay for college expenses minus financial aid at:
Community colleges: 25%
Public four-year postsecondary institutions: 25%
Postsecondary Completion
First-year community college students returning for their second year: 70%
Freshmen at four-year postsecondary institutions returning for their second
year: 77%
42
The Governance Divide
First-time, full-time students completing a BA degree within six years of
college entrance: 52%
Certificates, degrees, and diplomas awarded at all institutions per 100
students: 20
Benefits
Population ages 25 to 65 with a BA degree or higher: 27%
GEORGIA
Preparation for College
High school completion: 85% (79% earn a diploma; 6% earn a GED)
9th to 12th graders taking at least one upper-level math course: n/a
9th to 12th graders taking at least one upper-level science course: n/a
8th graders taking algebra: n/a
Number of SAT/ACT scores in top 20% nationally per 1,000 high school
graduates: 144
Number of scores that are 3 or more on AP subject test per 1,000 high school
juniors and seniors: 132
Participation in College
Chance for college by age 19: 32%
18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in postsecondary education: 26%
POSTSECONDARY AFFORDABILITY
Percent of income needed to pay for college expenses minus financial aid at:
Community colleges: 21%
Public four-year postsecondary institutions: 24%
Postsecondary Completion
First-year community college students returning for their second year: 54%
Freshmen at four-year postsecondary institutions returning for their second
year: 79%
First-time, full-time students completing a BA degree within six years of
college entrance: 42%
Certificates, degrees, and diplomas awarded at all institutions per 100
students: 20
The Governance Divide
43
Benefits
Population ages 25 to 65 with a BA degree or higher: 25%
NEW YORK
Preparation for College
High school completion: 87% (81% earn a diploma; 6% earn a GED)
9th to 12th graders taking at least one upper-level math course: 55%
9th to 12th graders taking at least one upper-level science course: 34%
8th graders taking algebra: n/a
Number of SAT/ACT scores in top 20% nationally per 1,000 high school
graduates: 207
Number of scores that are 3 or more on AP subject test per 1,000 high school
juniors and seniors: 219
Participation in College
Chance for college by age 19: 34%
18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in postsecondary education: 38%
Postsecondary Affordability
Percent of income needed to pay for college expenses minus financial aid at:
Community colleges: 30%
Public four-year postsecondary institutions: 32%
Postsecondary Completion
First-year community college students returning for their second year: 61%
Freshmen at four-year postsecondary institutions returning for their second
year: 81%
First-time, full-time students completing a BA degree within six years of
college entrance: 54%
Certificates, degrees, and diplomas awarded at all institutions per 100
students: 19
Benefits
Population ages 25 to 65 with a BA degree or higher: 32%
44
The Governance Divide
OREGON
Preparation for College
High school completion: 86% (76% earn a diploma; 10% earn a GED)
9th to 12th graders taking at least one upper-level math course (2002): 37%
9th to 12th graders taking at least one upper-level science course (2002): 19%
8th graders taking algebra (2002): 23%
Number of SAT/ACT scores in top 20% nationally per 1,000 high school
graduates: 160
Number of scores that are 3 or more on AP subject test per 1,000 high school
juniors and seniors: 69
Participation in College
Chance for college by age 19: 34%
18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in postsecondary education: 35%
Postsecondary Affordability
Percent of income needed to pay for college expenses minus financial aid at:
Community colleges: 29%
Public four-year postsecondary institutions: 34%
Postsecondary Completion
First-year community college students returning for their second year: 43%
Freshmen at four-year postsecondary institutions returning for their second
year: 78%
First-time, full-time students completing a BA degree within six years of
college entrance: 52%
Certificates, degrees, and diplomas awarded at all institutions per 100
students: 14
Benefits
Population ages 25 to 65 with a BA degree or higher: 30%
The Governance Divide
45
Endnotes
1. The case study reports for the four states—Florida, Georgia, New York, and Oregon—are
available on the National Center’s Web site at www.highereducation.org.
2. Education Trust, “Ticket to Nowhere: The Gap Between Leaving High School and Entering
College and High Performance Jobs,” in Thinking K–16 3:2 (Washington, DC: Fall 1999).
3. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Measuring Up 2004: The National
Report Card on Higher Education (San Jose, CA: 2004).
4. U.S. Bureau of the Census, “CPS Annual Demographic Survey,” Supplement, March 2001.
Available online at http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032001/perinc/new03_001.htm.
5. U.S. Department of Education. The Condition of Education (Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics, 2001).
6. For completion rates see C. Adelman, Lessons of a Generation (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994).
For other statistics on completion and remediation, see U.S. Department of Education, The
Condition of Education (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2001); U.S.
Department of Education, Projections of Education Statistics to 2011 (Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics, 2001); U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education
Statistics: 2000 (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2001); and American
Council on Education, Access and Persistence (Washington, DC: American Council on
Education, 2002).
7. Hans P. L’Orange, “Data and Accountability Systems: From Kindergarten Through College,”
in Richard Kazis et al. (eds.), Double the Numbers: Increasing Postsecondary Credentials for
Underrepresented Youth, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2004), p. 166.
8. For example, Georgia passed legislation mandating that a statewide P–16 council meet on a
regular basis. This worked under former Governor Barnes, but council has not met under
Governor Perdue.
9. Warner and Killinger, welcoming letter, conference materials from the National Education
Summit on High Schools (Washington, DC: 2005).
10. Michael Kirst, “Separation of K–12 and Postsecondary Education: Impact, Policy Implications,
and Research Needs,” in Susan Fuhrman and David Cohen (eds.), State of Education Policy
Research (forthcoming).
11. Kirst and Venezia (eds.), From High School to College: Improving Opportunities for Success in
Postsecondary Education (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2004).
12. Kati Haycock, “Why Is K–16 Collaboration Essential to Educational Equity?” in Gathering
Momentum: Building the Learning Connection Between Schools and Colleges, The Hechinger
Institute on Education and the Media, The Institute for Educational Leadership, and the
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, April 2002.
46
The Governance Divide
13. Each state uses a different term for what this paper refers to as K–16 reform. Florida uses K–20;
Georgia, P–16; New York, PK–16; and Oregon, K–16. When we refer to each state’s particular
reforms, we use the terminology used by that state; otherwise, we use K–16. This final report is
based on four state case reports that can be found at www.highereducation.org.
14. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Measuring Up 2004.
15. Education Trust, “Ticket to Nowhere.”
16. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Measuring Up 2004.
17. U.S. Bureau of the Census, “CPS Annual Demographic Survey,” Supplement, March 2001.
Available online at http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032001/perinc/new03_001.htm.
18. W. Norton Grubb, Learning and Earning in the Middle: The Economic Benefits of Sub-baccalaureate
Education. New York: Community College Research Center, Columbia University, 1999. (ED
431 459)
19. U.S. Department of Education, The Condition of Education (2001).
20. Ibid.
21. For completion rates see Adelman, Lessons of a Generation. For other statistics on completion
and remediation, see: U.S. Department of Education, The Condition of Education; U.S.
Department of Education, Projections of Education Statistics to 2011; U.S. Department of
Education, Digest of Education Statistics: 2000; and American Council on Education,
Access and Persistence.
22. C. Adelman, Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns and Bachelor’s Degree
Attainment (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research
and Improvement, 1999). See also L. Horn and L. Kojaku, High School Academic Curriculum and
the Persistence Path through College: Persistence and Transfer Behavior of Undergraduates 3 Years after
Entering 4-Year Institutions (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2001).
23. U.S. Department of Education, The Condition of Education (Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics, 1997).
24. Education Trust, Youth at the Crossroads (Washington, DC: 2001).
25. Education Trust, “Improving Achievement and Closing the Gap, K–16,” presentation to the
Institute on Education Reform, (Washington, DC: 1998).
26. Kirst, “Separation of K–12 and Postsecondary Education.”
27. Richard C. Richardson, et al., Designing State Higher Education Systems for a New Century
(Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press, 1999).
28. Kirst and Venezia (eds.), From High School to College.
29. Each state was visited by a team of researchers for approximately one week. Interviews were
conducted with state-level education leaders, policymakers, researchers, and others in state
education agencies. In New York, interviews were also conducted in New York City. In
Georgia, phone interviews were conducted with regional P–16 representatives. The field
research was conducted between September 2003 and May 2004. Follow-up phone interviews
were conducted when additional information was necessary. Alist of interview questions can
be found at www.highereducation.org. Interview transcripts were analyzed for common
themes and were utilized only when the themes were consistent across interviews.
30. See www.highereducation.org for more information.
31. See http://bridgeproject.stanford.edu for more information.
32. See www.iel.org for more information.
The Governance Divide
47
33. Data on share of state appropriations are from the National Center for Public Policy and
Higher Education, Measuring Up 2004. Descriptions of the states’ educational and governance
contexts are from state case reports available at www.highereducation.org.
34. See www.suny.edu.
35. Achieve, Inc., and National Governors Association (NGA), Ready? Set? Go! Redesigning the
American High School (Washington, DC: 2005).
36. Maeroff, Usdan, and Callan, The Learning Connection: New Partnerships Between Schools and
Colleges; Hechinger Institute, Institute for Educational Leadership, and the National Center for
Public Policy and Higher Education, “Gathering Momentum”; Kirst and Venezia (eds.), From
High School to College; and http://bridgeproject.stanford.edu.
37. For example, Georgia passed legislation mandating that a statewide P–16 council meet on a
regular basis. This worked under former Governor Barnes, but council has not met under
Governor Perdue.
38. Governor Mark R. Warner, Remarks at the Education Commission of the States’ National
Forum, Governors’ Panel, (Orlando, FL: July 14, 2004).
39. Kirst and Venezia (eds.), From High School to College.
40. Haycock, “Why is K–16 Collaboration Essential to Educational Equity?”
41. Ibid, p. 4.
42. David T. Conley, “Connecting Measures for Success in High School and College,” in Richard
Kazis et al. (eds.), Double the Numbers: Increasing Postsecondary Credentials for Underrepresented
Youth, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2004), p. 139.
43. Achieve and NGA, Ready? Set? Go!
44. David A. Longanecker, “Financing Tied to Postsecondary Outcomes: Examples from States,”
in Richard Kazis et al. (eds.), Double the Numbers: Increasing Postsecondary Credentials for
Underrepresented Youth (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2004), p. 114.
45. Hans P. L’Orange, “Data and Accountability Systems: From Kindergarten Through College,”
in Richard Kazis et al. (eds.), Double the Numbers: Increasing Postsecondary Credentials for
Underrepresented Youth, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2004), p. 166.
46. Ibid.
47. Achieve and National Governors Association, An Action Agenda for Improving America’s High
Schools, (Washington, DC: 2005), p. 16.
48. National Center for Educational Accountability, “Minimum Requirements for a Student
Achievement Information System,” survey, (Austin, TX: NCEA, 2003). Cited in Achieve and
NGA, An Action Agenda for Improving America’s High Schools, p. 16.
49. Achieve, Inc., and National Governors Association, An Action Agenda for Improving America’s
High Schools (Washington, DC: 2005), p. 16.
50. Peter Ewell, “An Accountability System for ‘Doubling the Numbers,’ ” in Richard Kazis et al.
(eds.), Double the Numbers: Increasing Postsecondary Credentials for Underrepresented Youth
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2004).
51. From www.k20accountability.org.
52. Ewell, “An Accountability System for ‘Doubling the Numbers.’ ”
53. From www.k20accountability.org.
54. Data are from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Measuring Up 2004.
48
The Governance Divide
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
PATRICK M. CALLAN is president of the National Center for Public Policy and
Higher Education. He has previously served as executive director of the
California Higher Education Policy Center, the California Postsecondary
Education Commission, the Washington State Council for Postsecondary
Education, and the Montana Commission on Postsecondary Education, and
as vice president of the Education Commission of the States (ECS).
JONI E. FINNEY is vice president of the National Center for Public Policy
and Higher Education. Finney oversees the research, communication, and
administration of the National Center. She directs research studies related to
higher education finance, governance, and performance, including developing
the nation’s first state-by-state report card for higher education, Measuring Up.
Prior to her position at the National Center, Finney held senior policy positions
with the California Higher Education Policy Center, the Education Commission
of the States (ECS), the Pennsylvania State University and the University of
Southern Colorado.
MICHAEL W. KIRST is professor of Education at Stanford University and former
president of California State Board of Education. He is a faculty affiliate with
the Department of Political Science, and has a courtesy appointment with the
Graduate School of Business. Before joining the Stanford University faculty,
Kirst held several positions with the federal government, including staff director
of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Manpower, Employment, and Poverty,
and director of Program Planning and Evaluation for the Bureau of Elementary
and Secondary Education in the former U.S. Office of Education. He was the
principal investigator for Stanford University’s Bridge Project and co-author of
Betraying the College Dream and From High School to College.
The Governance Divide
49
MICHAEL D. USDAN is senior fellow at the Institute for Educational Leadership
(IEL). He was president of IEL for 20 years. Before joining IEL, he was
Connecticut’s commissioner of Higher Education, served as president of
the Merrill-Palmer Institute in Detroit, and taught at Columbia University, the
City University of New York, Northwestern University, Fordham University,
and in schools in New York City and White Plains, New York.
ANDREA VENEZIA is senior policy analyst and project director at the National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Her work examines education
policy, particularly as related to equity and the transition from K–12 to postsecondary
education. Prior to joining the National Center, she directed Stanford
University’s Bridge Project and co-authored Betraying the College Dream and
From High School to College. She has worked for a variety of state, federal, and
not-for-profit entities, including the Stanford Institute for Higher Education
Research, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, and the National
Education Goals Panel.
50
The Governance Divide
THE INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
The Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization based in Washington, DC. For more than 40 years, IEL’s mission
has been to build the capacity of individuals and organizations in education
and related fields to work together across policies, programs, and sectors. The
Institute provides services in the following three program areas: Developing
and Supporting Leaders, Strengthening School-Family-Community
Connections, and Connecting and Improving Policies and Systems that Serve
Children and Youth. IEL brings together diverse constituencies, such as federal,
state, and local government agencies and nonprofit organizations, and focuses
on empowering leaders with knowledge and applicable ideas. The Institute
facilitates dialogue across boundaries of all sorts, building alliances and
partnerships for change. Its publications translate research and experience into
practical recommendations about what works to improve American education.
THE STANFORD INSTITUTE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH
The Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research (SIHER) is home to
sponsored research projects that examine contemporary higher education
planning and policy issues from a wide range of analytical perspectives,
including those of social scientists and policy audiences in the United States
and abroad. Since its establishment in 1989, SIHER has sought to understand
the dynamics of systemic change, productivity, management, and effectiveness
of higher education organizations, as well as to offer suggestions for their
improvement.
The Governance Divide
51
THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND HIGHER EDUCATION
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education promotes public
policies that enhance Americans’ opportunities to pursue and achieve highquality
education and training beyond high school. As an independent,
nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, the National Center prepares actionoriented
analyses of pressing policy issues facing the states and the nation
regarding opportunity and achievement in higher education—including twoand
four-year, public and private, for-profit and nonprofit institutions. The
National Center communicates performance results and key findings to the
public, to civic, business, and higher education leaders, and to state and federal
leaders who are poised to improve higher education policy.
Established in 1998, the National Center is not affiliated with any institution
of higher education, with any political party, or with any government agency;
it receives continuing, core financial support from a consortium of national
foundations that includes The Pew Charitable Trusts, The Atlantic
Philanthropies, and The Ford Foundation.
152 North Third Street, Suite 705, San Jose, California 95112
Telephone: 408-271-2699| FAX: 408-271-2697
www.highereducation.org
NATIONAL CENTER PUBLICATIONS
The National Center publishes:
Reports and analyses commissioned by the National Center,
Reports and analyses written by National Center staff,
National Center Policy Reports that are approved by the National Center’s
Board of Directors, and
National CrossTalk, a quarterly publication.
The following National Center publications—as well as a host of other
information and links—are available at www.highereducation.org. Single
copies of most of these reports are also available from the National Center.
Please FAX requests to 408-271-2697 and ask for the report by publication
number.
The Governance Divide: A Report on a Four-State Study on Improving College Readiness and
Success, by Andrea Venezia, Patrick M. Callan, Joni E. Finney, Michael W. Kirst, and Michael D.
Usdan (September 2005, #05-3). This report identifies and examines four policy levers available to
52
The Governance Divide
states that are interested in creating sustained K–16 reform: finance, assessments and curricula,
accountability, and data systems. In addition, the report examines the importance of other
factors—such as leadership and state history and culture—in initiating and sustaining
K–16 reform.
The Governance Divide: The Case Study for Florida by Andrea Venezia and Joni E. Finney
(September 2005, #05-4).
The Governance Divide: The Case Study for Georgia by Andrea Venezia, Patrick M. Callan,
Michael W. Kirst, and Michael D. Usdan (September 2005, #05-5).
The Governance Divide: The Case Study for New York by Andrea Venezia, Michael W. Kirst,
and Michael D. Usdan (September 2005, #05-6).
The Governance Divide: The Case Study for Oregon by Andrea Venezia and Michael W. Kirst
(September 2005, #05-7).
Borrowers Who Drop Out: A Neglected Aspect of the College Student Loan Trend, by Lawrence
Gladieux and Laura Perna (May 2005, #05-2). This report examines the experiences of students
who borrow to finance their educations, but do not complete their postsecondary programs.
Using the latest comprehensive data, this report compares borrowers who drop out with other
groups of students, and provides recommendations on policies and programs that would
better prepare, support, and guide students—especially low-income students—in completing
their degrees.
Case Study of Utah Higher Education, by Kathy Reeves Bracco and Mario Martinez (April 2005,
#05-1). This report examines state policies and performance in the areas of enrollment and
affordability. Compared with other states, Utah has been able to maintain a system of higher
education that is more affordable for students, while enrollments have almost doubled over the
past 20 years.
Measuring Up 2004: The National Report Card on Higher Education (September 2004). Measuring
Up 2004 consists of a national report card for higher education (report #04-5) and 50 state report
cards (#04-4) The purpose of Measuring Up 2004 is to provide the public and policymakers with
information to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. For the first time, this
edition of Measuring Up provides information about each state’s improvement over the past
decade. Visit www.highereducation.org to download Measuring Up 2004 or to make your own
comparisons of state performance in higher education.
Technical Guide Documenting Methodology, Indicators, and Data Sources for Measuring Up
2004 (November 2004, #04-6).
Ensuring Access with Quality to California’s Community Colleges, by Gerald C. Hayward,
Dennis P. Jones, Aims C. McGuinness, Jr., and Allene Timar, with a postscript by Nancy Shulock
(May 2004, #04-3). This report finds that enrollment growth pressures, fee increases, and recent
budget cuts in the California Community Colleges are having significant detrimental effects on
student access and program quality. The report also provides recommendations for creating
improvements that build from the state policy context and from existing promising practices
within the community colleges.
Public Attitudes on Higher Education: A Trend Analysis, 1993 to 2003, by John Immerwahr
(February 2004, #04-2). This public opinion survey, prepared by Public Agenda for the National
Center, reveals that public attitudes about the importance of higher education have remained
stable during the recent economic downturn. The survey also finds that there are some growing
public concerns about the costs of higher education, especially for those groups most affected,
including parents of high school students, African-Americans, and Hispanics.
The Governance Divide
53
Responding to the Crisis in College Opportunity (January 2004, #04-1). This policy statement,
developed by education policy experts at Lansdowne, Virginia, proposes short-term emergency
measures and long-term priorities for governors and legislators to consider for funding higher
education during the current lean budget years. Responding to the Crisis suggests that in 2004
the highest priority for state higher education budgets should be to protect college access and
affordability for students and families.
With Diploma in Hand: Hispanic High School Seniors Talk about Their Future, by John
Immerwahr (June 2003, #03-2). This report by Public Agenda explores some of the primary
obstacles that many Hispanic students face in seeking higher education—barriers that suggest
opportunities for creative public policy to improve college attendance and completion rates
among Hispanics.
Purposes, Policies, Performance: Higher Education and the Fulfillment of a State’s Public Agenda
(February 2003, #03-1). This essay is drawn from discussions of higher education leaders and
policy officials at a roundtable convened in June 2002 at New Jersey City University on the
relationship between public purposes, policies, and performance of American higher education.
Measuring Up 2002: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education (October 2002, #02-7).
This report card, which updates the inaugural edition released in 2000, grades each state on its
performance in five key areas of higher education. Measuring Up 2002 also evaluates each state’s
progress in relation to its own results from 2000.
Technical Guide Documenting Methodology, Indicators, and Data Sources for Measuring Up
2002 (October 2002, #02-8).
State Policy and Community College–Baccalaureate Transfer, by Jane V. Wellman (July 2002, #02-
6). This report recommends state policies to energize and improve higher education performance
regarding transfers from community colleges to four-year institutions.
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education: The Early Years (June 2002, #02-5). The
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) attained remarkable success in
funding innovative and enduring projects during its early years. This report, prepared by FIPSE’s
early program officers, describes how those results were achieved.
Losing Ground: A National Status Report on the Affordability of American Higher Education
(May 2002, #02-3). This national status report documents the declining affordability of higher
education for American families, and highlights public policies that support affordable higher
education. Provides state-by-state summaries as well as national findings.
The Affordability of Higher Education: A Review of Recent Survey Research, by John
Immerwahr (May 2002, #02-4). This review of recent surveys by Public Agenda confirms that
Americans feel that rising college prices threaten to make higher education inaccessible for
many people.
Coping with Recession: Public Policy, Economic Downturns, and Higher Education, by Patrick
M. Callan (February 2002, #02-2). This report outlines the major policy considerations that states
and institutions of higher education face during economic downturns.
Competition and Collaboration in California Higher Education, by Kathy Reeves Bracco and
Patrick M. Callan (January 2002, #02-1). This report argues that the structure of California’s state
higher education system limits the system’s capacity for collaboration.
Measuring Up 2000: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education (November 2000,
#00-3). This first-of-its-kind report card grades each state on its performance in higher education.
The report card also provides comprehensive profiles of each state and brief states-at-a-glance
comparisons.
54
The Governance Divide
Beneath the Surface: A Statistical Analysis of the Major Variables Associated with State
Grades in Measuring Up 2000, by Alisa F. Cunningham and Jane V. Wellman (November
2001, #01-4). Using statistical analysis, this report explores the “drivers” that predict overall
performance in Measuring Up 2000.
Supplementary Analysis for Measuring Up 2000: An Exploratory Report, by Mario Martinez
(November 2001, #01-3). This supplement explores the relationships within and among the
performance categories in Measuring Up 2000.
Some Next Steps for States: A Follow-up to Measuring Up 2000, by Dennis Jones and Karen
Paulson (June 2001, #01-2). This report suggests a range of actions that states can take to
bridge the gap between state performance identified in Measuring Up 2000 and the
formulation of effective policy to improve performance in higher education.
AReview of Tests Performed on the Data in Measuring Up 2000, by Peter Ewell (June 2001,
#01-1). This review describes the statistical testing performed on the data in Measuring Up
2000 by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
Recent State Policy Initiatives in Education: A Supplement to Measuring Up 2000, by Aims
McGuinness, Jr. (December 2000, #00-6). This supplement highlights education initiatives that
states have adopted since 1997–98.
Assessing Student Learning Outcomes: A Supplement to Measuring Up 2000, by Peter Ewell
and Paula Ries (December 2000, #00-5). This report is a national survey of state efforts to
assess student learning outcomes in higher education.
Technical Guide Documenting Methodology, Indicators and Data Sources for Measuring Up
2000 (November 2000, #00-4).
AState-by-State Report Card on Higher Education: Prospectus (March 2000, #00-1). This
document summarizes the goals of the National Center’s report-card project.
Great Expectations: How the Public and Parents—White, African-American, and Hispanic—
View Higher Education, by John Immerwahr with Tony Foleno (May 2000, #00-2). This report by
Public Agenda finds that Americans overwhelmingly see higher education as essential for success.
Survey results are also available for the following states:
Great Expectations: How Pennsylvanians View Higher Education (May 2000, #00-2b).
Great Expectations: How Floridians View Higher Education (August 2000, #00-2c).
Great Expectations: How Coloradans View Higher Education (August 2000, #00-2d).
Great Expectations: How Californians View Higher Education (August 2000, #00-2e).
Great Expectations: How New Yorkers View Higher Education (October 2000, #00-2f).
Great Expectations: How Illinois Residents View Higher Education (October 2000, #00-2h).
State Spending for Higher Education in the Next Decade: The Battle to Sustain Current Support,
by Harold A. Hovey (July 1999, #99-3). This fiscal forecast of state and local spending patterns
finds that the vast majority of states will face significant fiscal deficits over the next eight years,
which will in turn lead to increased scrutiny of higher education in almost all states, and to
curtailed spending for public higher education in many states.
South Dakota: Developing Policy-Driven Change in Higher Education, by Mario Martinez (June
1999, #99-2). This report describes the processes for change in higher education that government,
business, and higher education leaders are creating and implementing in South Dakota.
Taking Responsibility: Leaders’ Expectations of Higher Education, by John Immerwahr (January
1999, #99-1). This paper reports the views of those most involved with decision-making about
higher education, based on focus groups and a survey conducted by Public Agenda.
The Governance Divide
55
The Challenges and Opportunities Facing Higher Education: An Agenda for Policy Research, by
Dennis Jones, Peter Ewell, and Aims McGuinness (December 1998, #98-8). This report argues that
due to substantial changes in the landscape of postsecondary education, new state-level policy
frameworks must be developed and implemented.
Higher Education Governance: Balancing Institutional and Market Influences, by Richard C.
Richardson, Jr., Kathy Reeves Bracco, Patrick M. Callan, and Joni E. Finney (November 1998,
#98-7). This publication describes the structural relationships that affect institutional effectiveness
in higher education, and argues that state policy should strive for a balance between institutional
and market forces.
Federal Tuition Tax Credits and State Higher Education Policy: A Guide for State Policy Makers,
by Kristin D. Conklin (December 1998, #98-6). This report examines the implications of the federal
income tax provisions for students and their families, and makes recommendations for state
higher education policy.
The Challenges Facing California Higher Education: A Memorandum to the Next Governor of
California, by David W. Breneman (September 1998, #98-5). This memorandum argues that
California should develop a new Master Plan for Higher Education.
Tidal Wave II Revisited: A Review of Earlier Enrollment Projections for California Higher
Education, by Gerald C. Hayward, David W. Breneman, and Leobardo F. Estrada (September
1998, #98-4). This review finds that earlier forecasts of a surge in higher education enrollments
were accurate.
Organizing for Learning: The View from the Governor’s Office, by James B. Hunt Jr., chair of the
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, and former governor of North Carolina
(June 1998, #98-3). This publication is an address to the American Association for Higher
Education concerning opportunity in higher education.
The Price of Admission: The Growing Importance of Higher Education, by John Immerwahr
(Spring 1998, #98-2). This report is a national survey of Americans’ views on higher education,
conducted and reported by Public Agenda.
Concept Paper: A National Center to Address Higher Education Policy, by Patrick M. Callan
(March 1998, #98-1). This concept paper describes the purposes of the National Center for Public
Policy and Higher Education.
www.highereducation.org