Abstract
Using Measuring Up data from 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006, this study examines the extent to which the state performance grades, and changes in grades, are associated with the characteristics of each state and its arrangements for higher education governance and control. To what extent is each state’s higher education performance a product of relatively controllable governance and regulatory practices versus relatively uncontrollable measures of state size, affluence, and demographics? Using both Time Series Analysis and OLS Regression, the results show that the measures of state size, affluence, education levels, and growth account for the greatest share of explained variance in State Measuring Up grades. Few of the higher education governance and accountability practices are statistically associated with the index scores on Measuring Up. Only the centrality of state higher education governance is significantly related to two of the state grades, and the relationship is negative. Moreover, changes in state regulation, performance systems, and governance structures over the past decade have not produced dramatic changes in the grades each state receives on the national report card.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 411–431.
Atwell, R. H. (1985). A view from Washington. In J. W. Gardner, R. H. Atwell, & R. O. Berdahl (Eds.), Cooperation and conflict. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards.
Baum, S., & Ma, J. (2007). Education pays: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. The College Board.
Berdahl, R. (1971). Statewide coordination of higher education. Washington, DC: American Council of Education.
Bowen, F. M., Bracco, K. R., Callan, P. M., Finney, J. E., Richardson, R. C., & Trombley, W. (1997). State structures for the governance of higher education: A comparative study. The California Higher Education Policy Center.
Burke, J. & Associates. (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burke, J., & Serban, A. (1998). Performance funding for higher education: Fad or trend? New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 97. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Burke, J., & Minassians, H. (2002). Reporting higher education results: missing links in the performance chain. New Directions for Institutional Research, No.116. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Callan, P. M., Doyle, W., & Finney, J. E. (2001). Evaluating state higher education performance. Change, 10–19.
Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. (1973). The state and higher education: A proud past and a vital future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1982). The control of the Campus: A report on the governance of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Doyle, W. P. (2006). Adoption of merit-based student grant programs: An event history analysis. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 28(3), 259–285.
Glenny, L., & Bowen, H. (1977). State intervention in higher education. A paper prepared for the Sloan Commission on Government and higher education. CA: University of California.
Glenny, L., & Dalglish, T. (1973). Public universities, state agencies, and the law. Constitutional autonomy in decline. CA: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, University of California.
Hearn, J. C., & Griswold, C. P (1994). State-level centralization and policy innovation in U.S. Postsecondary Education. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 16(2), 161–190.
Heinrich C. J., & Lynn L. E. (Eds.). (2002). Governance and performance: New perspectives. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Heller, D. E. (2003). State oversight of academia. In R. G. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Governing academia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kaufman, H. (1960). Emerging conflicts in the doctrines of public administration. American Political Science Review, 50(4), 1057–1073.
Keller, G. (1995). Managing in tomorrow’s academic environment. In T. R. Sanford (Ed.), Preparing for the information needs of the twenty-first century. New Directions for Institutional Research, No, 85. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kerr, C. (1963). The uses of the university. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lowry, R. C. (2001a). The effects of state political interests and campus outputs on public university revenues. Economics of Education Review, 20, 105–119.
Lowry, R. C. (2001b). Governmental structure, trustee selection, and public university prices and spending: Multiple means to similar ends. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 845–86.
Martinez, M. C., Farias, J., & Arellano, E. (2002) State higher education report card: What’s in a grade? The Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 1–18.
Massy, W. F. (2003). Honoring the trust: quality and cost containment in higher education. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.
McGuinness, A. C. (1995). Prospects for state higher education relations: A decade of tensions. In T. R. Sanford (Ed.), Preparing for the information needs of the twenty-first century. New Directions for Institutional Research, No, 85. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McGuinness, A. C. (2003). Models of postsecondary education coordination and governance in the States. Education Commission of the States Retrieved September 30, 2006 from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/34/23/3423.pdf.
McLendon, M. K. (2003). State governance reform of higher education: Patterns trends, and theories of the public policy process. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education handbook of theory and research (Vol. 18). New York: Agathon Press.
McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Deaton, R. (2004). Called to account: An analysis of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Kansas City, MO, November 5, 2005.
McLendon, M. K., Heller, D. E., & Young, S. P. (2005). State postsecondary policy innovation: Politics, competition, and the interstate migration of policy ideas. Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 363–400.
McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Mokher, C. G. (2006a). The politics of funding public higher education: A longitudinal analysis of influences on state appropriations patterns. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Anaheim, CA.
McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Mokher, C. G. (2006b). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1–24.
Moe, T. M. (1990). The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. In O. Williamson (Ed.), Organization theory: From Chester Barnard to the present and beyond (pp. 116–153). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mortimer, K. P. (1972). Accountability in higher education. Washington: American Association for Higher Education.
Orland, H. (1980). A program for renewed partnership: The report for the Sloan Commission on government and higher education. Cambridge: Ballinger.
Osborne, D, & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Perkins, J. (1973). The university as an organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Princeton University Library. (2006). Data and statistical services. Retrieved January, 25, 2006, from http://dss.princeton.edu/online_help/analysis/panel.htm#models
Rizzo, M. J. (2005). State preferences for higher education spending: A panel data analysis, 1977–2001. Paper presented at the Cornell Higher Education Research Institutes annual conference, Ithaca, NY.
Spellings, M. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. A report of the commission appointed by the Secretary of Education. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2000). Measuring up 2000: The state-by-state report card for higher education. San Jose, CA.
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2002). Measuring up 2002: The state-by-state report card for higher education. San Jose, CA.
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2004). Measuring up 2004: The state-by-state report card for higher education. San Jose, CA.
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2006). Measuring up 2006: The state-by-state report card for higher education. San Jose, CA.
UCLA Academic Technology Services. (2006). Stata FAQ: How can I check for collinearity in survey regression? Retrieved November 01, 2006 from http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/faq/svycollin.htm
Volkwein, J. F. (1987). State regulation and campus autonomy. In J. C. Smart (Ed.) Higher education handbook of theory & research, Vol. 3. Flemington, NJ: Agathon Press.
Volkwein, J. F. (2007). Assessing institutional effectiveness and connecting the pieces of a fragmented university. In J. Burke (Ed.), Fixing the Fragmented University Bolton (pp. 145–180). MA: Anker Publishing.
Volkwein, J. F., & Grunig, S. D. (2005). Resources and reputation in higher education: Double, double, toil and trouble. In J. C. Burke & Associates, Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands (pp. 246–274). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Volkwein, J. F., & Malik, S. M. (1997). State regulation and administrative flexibility at public universities. Research in Higher Education, 38, 17–42.
Volkwein, J. F., & Parmley, K. (2000). Comparing administrative satisfaction in public and private Universities. Research in Higher Education, 41, 95–115.
Volkwein, J. F., & Zhou, J. (2003). Measuring up: Examining the connection between state governance structures and performance. Paper presented at ASHE Council on Public Policy in Higher Education, Portland, Oregon, November 13, 2003.
Wellman, J. V. (2001). Assessing state accountability systems. Change, 47–52.
Williams, R. (2005). Multicollinearity. Retrieved April 3, 2007 from http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam/stats2/l11.pdf
Yates, D. (1982). Bureaucratic democracy: The search for democracy and efficiency in American government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Zumeta, W. (1996). Meeting the demand for higher education without breaking the bank: A framework for the design of state higher education policies for an era of increased demand. Journal of Higher Education, 67(4), 367–425.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This manuscript is based upon a paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, June 2007, Kansas City, MO.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Volkwein, J.F., Tandberg, D.A. Measuring Up: Examining the Connections among State Structural Characteristics, Regulatory Practices, and Performance. Res High Educ 49, 180–197 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-9066-3
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-9066-3