Suchergebnisse

Renewing the Promise: State Policies to Improve Higher Education Performance summarizes the findings from a study that sought to understand how public policy explains the collective performance of higher education institutions in five states Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Texas, and Washingtonthat have similar challenges as other states, such as the need to increase educational attainment and close persistent gaps in opportunity by race, ethnicity, income, and geography. The study reviewed state higher education performance and policies from the early 1990s through approximately 2010, including policies and statutes related to higher education finance, accountability, structure, and governance. We augmented our review of state policies and data by interviewing political, business, and higher education leaders in each state. ; University of Pennsylvania Institute for Research on Higher Education

As the need for a highly knowledgeable citizenry grows, fewer Americans are accessing training and education beyond high school. The failure to attain postsecondary degrees and workforce certificates is particularly pervasive among low-income and minority populations. An undereducated citizenry leaves the country at a competitive disadvantage, diminishes the middle class, and lowers the standard of living for more and more people. Although the federal government plays an important role in higher education, states bear the primary responsibility for developing their own public higher education systems, including policies for funding and governing higher education and for connecting higher education with public schools. Renewing the Promise: State Policies to Improve Higher Education Performance summarizes the findings from a study that sought to understand how public policy explains the collective performance of higher education institutions in five states— Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Texas, and Washington—that have similar challenges as other states, such as the need to increase educational attainment and close persistentgaps in opportunity by race, ethnicity, income, and geography. The study reviewed state higher education performance and policies from the early 1990s through approximately 2010, including policies and statutes related to higher education finance, accountability, structure, and governance. We augmented our review of state policies and data by interviewing political, business, and higher education leaders in each state.

This report describes a wide range of successful strategies from which states can draw to increase the educational attainment of their residents while holding down higher education costs. Part I offers examples of strategies, programs, and practices that the authors' research findings can raise educational productivity. Part II describes the mechanisms that state policymakers can use, directly and indirectly, to influence improvements, and it emphasizes the necessity of state policy support and, if needed, policy change. Part II outlines the key policy levers that state leaders can use to pursue the strategies outlined in Part I. Together, Parts I and II of this document present the solid base of experience available to policy leaders as they seek to raise the higher education attainment of state residents, even in the face of fiscal constraints. The examples of best practices in this report show that there are ways to simultaneously achieve access, quality, and efficiency in higher education. ; National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) ; National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education

State policy leaders now faceor soon will encountercritical decisions about their colleges and universities for two reasons: First, the success of American colleges and universities over the last half-century has given rise to high societal expectations. Second, unprecedented challenges to higher education are emerging from substantial demographic, technological, economic, and organizational transformations in our society. In this context, the paper aims to trace and summarize the complexity of general patterns in higher education governance, to describe the structural relationships that deeply affect institutional efficacy, and therefore must inform higher educational policy decisions. The authors claim that state policy strikes a balancesometimes explicitly, sometimes by defaultbetween the influence of the market (defined broadly as forces external to state government and higher education) and the influence of systems or institutions of higher education. An effective balance within and across three policy levelsthe macro state policy environment, system design, and practical work processes promotes the general welfare. The goal of state policy, then, is to exercise state authority to achieve public priorities by balancing, within and across complex policy levels, the influence of academic institutions and the influence of the market, broadly defined. ; The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education