Higher Education Accountability Systems

In 2008 and 2009, Education Sector conducted a comprehensive analysis of higher education accountability systems in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. We analyzed thousands of documents, Web sites, policies, and laws attempting to answer two questions:
1. What information do states collect on their higher education institutions?
2. How does the state use that information to improve its colleges and universities?

Based on this research, we graded every state accountability system in 15 categories. Some categories, including student learning outcomes, productivity, faculty scholarship, student engagement, and affordability, focus on the information states gather about various means and ends of higher education. Other categories, including governance, funding, and public information, focus on the ways states use information to hold institutions accountable for quality and results. To be clear, we did not evaluate state results in various higher education outcomes, but rather the breadth, accuracy, and strength of their systems designed to hold institutions accountable for results.

In each category, states were graded on a three-level scale. States with particularly well-developed measurement and reporting instruments earned a "best practice" rating. Others, with less complete efforts, received a rating of "in progress." States where little is being done, or vital elements are missing, garnered a "needs improvement" rating. The interactive map below has grades for every state in selected categories. Mouse over the states to see how they stack up*.




Grades were based on a range of factors, including accuracy, timeliness, comparability, and breadth of information. States received more credit for information reported consistently by all institutions than for information reported idiosyncratically by only a few. Because accountability must be transparent to be meaningful, we considered only publicly available information. Each state was given the chance to comment on our reviews, and about half took the opportunity to point out things we had missed, comment on our findings, or ask questions about our analysis.

Every effort was made to grade states consistently and fairly. But on some level, however, the grades represent the subjective judgment of the authors. The grades should be seen as tools for improvement. Even states that receive "best practice" ratings have room to learn from the innovations and experiences of their peers.

The report's main page is available here. It has a larger version of the interactive map and links to a summary document of our grading system and the grades in each of our categories, individual summaries for every state, and separate reports for each of our 15 categories. We released a report in December highlighting best practices and explaining why state accountability systems matter.

*Many thanks to Abdul Kargbo for putting together this map. Thanks also to Renee Rybak, Robin Smiles, and the entire ES communications team who helped put this project together.