Back

State Summaries

DATA AND ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

Alabama

Alabama has separate accountability systems for both secondary and postsecondary education systems. Alabama has established a student unit record data system for all public two- and four-year institutions of higher education that includes basic student biographical information, retention rates, credit hour reports, enrollment data, tuition rates, research, and facilities. These reports are provided to the State Superintendent and the State Board of Education. The Commission on Higher Education monitors and reports periodically on minimum degree productivity standards for all existing programs of instruction at public two- and four-year institutions of higher education. The annual average number of degrees awarded over a designated period constitutes a productivity standard by which programs are deemed viable or non-viable. Postsecondary institutions in Alabama also have a role in secondary education accountability. In order to track the transition from secondary to postsecondary systems, postsecondary institutions must report aggregate placement results for graduates of the secondary schools in their service area. A new accountability system for secondary education was established in 2004. All schools are required to make "adequate yearly progress" which is determined by reading, math, and subject tests, participation rates, attendance rates, and graduation rates. In 2009, the State Board of Education voted to phase out the Alabama High School Graduation Exam that required that students demonstrate skills in reading, language, math, science and social studies in order to receive a high school diploma. End-of-course assessments replace the exam. Alabama requires an annual Student Achievement Report to the public and State Superintendent of Education which reports on student performance on testing, dropout rates, attendance, graduation, college attendance of K-12 students. (Last Updated: 2013)

Alaska

Postsecondary institutions regulated by the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education are required to administer institutional assessment programs that provide tangible evidence, such as enrollment, graduation rates and placement rates, of the effectiveness of the general education program, instructional programs and related support services. This information is reported to the governor, legislature, and other state agencies. The Alaska State Department of Education issues an annual report to the governor, legislature and the public evaluating the performance of public secondary schools in the state, titled "Alaska's Public Schools: A Report Card to the Public." Local districts are required to issue similar documents reporting student performance on state standards-based assessments in reading, writing and mathematics; description of the school's attendance, retention, dropout and graduation rates; and other accountability measures. (Last Updated: 2013)

Arizona

Arizona is developing a comprehensive K-12 longitudinal data system and plans on linking this emerging system with a higher education data system in 2009. As part of the Changing Directions initiative, the Arizona Board of Regents approved policy changes in 2006 requiring the addition of information and accountability measures in the areas of admissions and enrollment, financial aid, student access and graduation rates. The universities were asked to develop a plan for implementing these various reporting and accountability measures and to develop measures specific to their differentiated missions. The board also reports on specific data on enrollment, degrees awarded, campus development, academic programs, staffing levels, sources of funds and highlights of the year that are specific to the Board of Regents, Arizona State University (ASU), Northern Arizona University (NAU), and the University of Arizona (UA). (Last updated 2008)

Arkansas

Public colleges and universities in Arkansas are required to collect and annually report to the governor, legislature and institutional boards of trustees, data on retention and graduation rates of students. They are also charged with reporting the number of students who required remediation during their first year of enrollment in a public institution of higher education in the state, if the enrollment occurred within two years of high school graduation, and the total direct and indirect costs of all remediation courses delivered the previous academic year. (Last updated 2008)

California

California has a few ongoing efforts to measure the performance of its systems of higher education. However, the state still works to implement a framework that has the buy-in of all stakeholders, and will measure the overall function and efficiency of the systems in relation to one another and in a statewide context. The Higher Education Accord, an agreement made between the Governor and the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU), requires the UC and the CSU to report on a number of performance measures relating to student enrollment data, degree completion rates, and utilization of state resources. In exchange for performance reporting, the Governor agrees to maintain a predictable level of funding to the systems of higher education. Thus, the Higher Education Accord, at least in theory, becomes null in the event of lean budget years when the state cannot provide the funding levels promised in the agreement. In addition, several legislative efforts to implement a statewide framework for higher education have either died in the legislature, or passed but were later vetoed by the Governor. Lastly, the California Postsecondary Education Commission maintains a database of student records from the three systems of public higher education. Using these data, the Commission evaluates performance in the areas of preparation, student success, affordability, and public benefit. (Last updated 2008)

Colorado

Colorado has established a statewide K-12 data system for collecting and reporting performance indicators from each public college and university. The state has focused on improving both data collection and use by auditing its data systems and developing a comprehensive data dictionary that clarifies terms and reporting. The state is also exploring expanding data capacity through the development of a unique teacher identifier. Quality indicators have been established for all Colorado colleges and universities in accordance with the institution's role and mission to measure the overall performance of the statewide system of higher education. The performance indicators measure achievement on such goals as improved faculty and administrative efficiency and productivity, student performance, student satisfaction and success, and employer satisfaction. The Colorado Commission on Higher Education has revised its Full-Time Equivalent Student Enrollment Policy that prescribes uniform financial reporting policies, including standards for counting and classifying full-time equivalent students, and defining which types of instruction may or may not be claimed for state General Fund support. (Last updated 2008)

Connecticut

The Connecticut State Department of Education has a data reporting site, Connecticut Education Data and Reporting (CEDaR), which provides comprehensive dataset for performance analysis. The Department also provides professional development in Data Driven Decision Making and Data Teams to help teachers improve instruction. The Connecticut Department of Higher Education was directed by the legislature to develop performance and accountability measures that are reported to the General Assembly annually that assess the institutional progress made by each public college and university in enhancing student learning and promoting academic excellence, creating partnerships with the K-12 system to improve teaching and learning at all levels, ensuring access to and affordability of higher education, promoting economic development, responding to societal needs, and ensuring the efficient use of resources. These annual reports include updated baseline and peer comparison data, performance improvement targets for each measure, and other pertinent information as required. (Last updated 2008)

Delaware

No formal postsecondary accountability system has been established in Delaware, but the Delaware Technical and Community Colleges have established performance measures and reporting system that include, but are not limited to: student enrollment, numbers of credits awarded, numbers of degree recipients, percent of students who transfer to senior institutions and percentage recipients who find employment. The State Board of Education has established a student assessment and accountability system tied to regular student assessments. The Board is required to prepare an annual report that documents the number of students enrolled in 12th grade, the number of those students who graduate, drop out, or have transferred. The State Board is also required to annually conduct a graduate follow-up report that tracks the educational and employment status of each high school graduate in postsecondary education or in the work force. (Last updated 2008)

Florida

Florida has a comprehensive K-20 education data system and warehouse. The mission of the system is to increase the proficiency of all students within one seamless, efficient system, by allowing them the opportunity to expand their knowledge and skills through learning opportunities and research. The K-20 education performance accountability system is established as a single, unified accountability system with multiple components, including, but not limited to, measures of adequate yearly progress, individual student learning gains in public schools, school grades, and return on investment. The Department of Education maintains an accountability system that measures student progress toward the following goals: highest student achievement, as indicated by evidence of student learning gains at all levels; seamless articulation and maximum access, as measured by evidence of progression, readiness, and access by targeted groups of students identified by the Commissioner of Education; skilled workforce and economic development, as measured by evidence of employment and earnings; quality efficient services, as measured by evidence of return on investment; and other goals as identified by law or rule. (Last updated 2008)

Georgia

The education agencies in Georgia, including the University System of Georgia (USG), Georgia Department of Education (DOE), and Technical College System of Georgia (TCSG), have data-sharing agreements to support the information needs that will improve student transition and success. The exchange of data allows for tracking of students from high school to post-secondary institutions in Georgia. Other agreements, for example between the Department of Early Care and Learning (pre-K) and the DOE, allow for the assessment of program effectiveness using longitudinal data. In addition, data sharing agreements between the USG and the Professional Standards Commission, and between USG, TCSG, and the Georgia Student Finance Commission, allow for tracking of special groups (teacher preparation programs) or special policies initiatives (the HOPE scholarship). The Governor's Office of Student Achievement tracks key accountability indicators for education agencies in Georgia and produces an annual report card. Additionally, the Alliance of Education Agency Heads, created by Governor Sonny Perdue, brings seven education agency heads together regularly to discuss common goals. The USG has provided feedback reports to public and private high schools in Georgia since the late 1980s. These reports provide detailed feedback on the performance of high school graduates in their first year of college. (Last updated 2008)

Hawaii

Facilitated by the Hawaii P-20 Partnerships for Education, the University of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii Department of Education are piloting a tool that provides reports based on longitudinal student data. Hawaii P-20 is collaborating with Cal-PASS (calpass.org) to organize, analyze, and report data about patterns of student participation, performance, and progress in the public education system from kindergarten through higher education. The tool is being validated during the 2008-09 academic year by a task force of University of Hawaii and Department of Education evaluation and information systems staff. In 2008, the Hawaii state legislature enacted Act 188 (SLH 2008), requiring the University of Hawaii to provide an annual incentive and performance report to the legislature in addition to its biennial benchmark report (HRS 304A-2001). The incentive and performance report will link up to two percent of the university's annual budget to measurable outcomes related to the university's strategic plan and state goals, including educational attainment and workforce needs. Act 188 also calls for a task force to study and provide recommendations for a funding formula system linked to full time student enrollment and costs and revenues related to different categories of students. (Last updated 2008)

Idaho

Legislative action mandates an annual report to be submitted by each school district reporting on the percentage of students by school who are achieving at or above the appropriate grade level on reading and math assessments, in support of a set of successively higher annual benchmarks for student achievement set forth by the legislature. An annual school accountability report card reports by school or district on a series of accountability measures including test scores, progress toward reducing drop-out rates, increasing graduation rate, estimated expenditures per student, reduction of teachers assigned outside their subject area, and others. Idaho's six colleges and universities are directed to incorporate academic assessment as an integral part of existing program review procedures and to utilize multiple assessment strategies to measure student learning in both general education and departmental major outcomes. Given the diversity of institutional roles and missions, student populations, assessment strategies and sampling techniques, the Board specifically directs that such assessments not be used to compare institutions, evaluate teachers, or to eliminate positions, programs or departments. (Last updated 2008)

Illinois

The Illinois Board of Higher Education does maintain a student unit record database for students enrolled in public institutions, but it is not linked to K-12 student records or other state data systems. The state expects to have this capability in 2010-11. The Illinois Board of Higher Education has adopted a series of performance indicators to help assess how well the state's system of higher education is meeting six major goals. The indicators are a mix of statewide indicators, common institutional indicators, and mission-specific institutional indicators in support of economic growth, partnerships with P-12 education, affordability, access and diversity, high quality, and productivity and accountability. Both the university and state community college systems have adopted performance budgeting and funding systems that provide incentive dollars based on high performance. (Last updated 2008)

Indiana

In June 2007, the Indiana Commission for Higher Education (ICHE) adopted "Reaching Higher: Strategic Directions for Higher Education in Indiana" as its plan for the future of higher education. Two central and cross-cutting components of the plan are quality and accountability. The commission will be working on implementing a series of recommendations to improve higher education accountability, including: convening a group of university-appointed institutional researchers and academic planners to review, refine and finalize a set of state-level dashboard indicators that are aligned to the 2007 Reaching Higher Goals; reporting annually and publicly on the state-level dashboard indicators; recommending performance-funding incentives (degree production, on-time graduation and transfer); consider additional ways to incorporate performance-funding incentives into the state higher education funding formula; and requiring that Indiana's colleges and universities provide the Commission with institutional progress reports. (Last updated 2008)

Iowa

A unique statewide student identifier is required for every public school student in prekindergarten - 12th grade in the Iowa, which is used for a variety of reporting purposes. While colleges and universities report that individual institutions use performance based budgeting and reporting, there are no statewide accountability mandates that link institutional performance to state budget allocations. (Last updated 2008)

Kansas

The Board of Regents has established Performance Agreements with all public postsecondary educational institutions. The receipt of any new moneys is contingent upon the institution's degree of compliance with its Performance Agreement. The regents continue to work on establishing a comprehensive data management system that allows for the collection, aggregation and reporting of information that documents community, area technical college, and university success in meeting their role and mission. In Fall 2002, a pilot data collection was conducted. In Fall 2003, the first "live" collection of student and enrollment information began. (Last updated 2008)

Kentucky

A statewide systematic student unit record data management system has been in place since 1980 which includes all postsecondary students at public and private universities and community and technical colleges, although it is not yet integrated with K-12, Employment Services, or other statewide databases. The system tracks graduation and retention rates, among other items, and is used in conjunction with the comprehensive postsecondary accountability system that has been instituted by the Council on Postsecondary Education. The Council has identified five key questions to help measure progress towards postsecondary reform efforts including: Are more Kentuckians ready for College? Are more students enrolling? Are more students advancing? Are we preparing Kentuckians for life and work? Is Kentucky's economy benefiting? Indicators of progress associated with each of the five questions help guide work of the system and have prompted the Council to establish system policies, helped inform budget priorities, and directed colleges and universities to institute programs to address areas needing improvement. Data associated with Kentucky's key indicators are collected and reported through the Council's data portal on its website, through regular status updates, and through the annual postsecondary education accountability report. It also provides the basis for two key reports to provide student transition feedback to key education providers: one directed at Kentucky's high schools, and the other to Kentucky's community colleges. Both reports can be found on the Council's website at www.cpe.ky.gov. (Last updated 2008)

Louisiana

The Board of Regents maintains a student unit record system that tracks students through all post-secondary public systems and campuses, including the Louisiana State University System (8 campuses and two research units), the Southern University System (3 campuses and 1 research unit), the University of Louisiana System (8 campuses), the Louisiana Community and Technical College System (7 community colleges, 2 technical community colleges, and the Louisiana Technical College with 41 sites), two free-standing learning centers, and one research consortium. Louisiana RS 17:3134, adopted in 1998 requires that an accountability process be established for the systematic and ongoing evaluation of quality and effectiveness in the public institutions of higher education in Louisiana and directs that a process be developed for allocating funding that will provide incentives and rewards for institutional performance. (Last updated 2008)

Maine

When the Maine State Legislature adopted the Learning Results in 1996, it established learning standards for all Maine students educated at public expense. These standards were revised and adopted by the legislature in 2007 to remain current with twenty-first century expectations. The legislation also required that a new system for assessing student progress be established. The assessment system has both state and local components. The state component includes the Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) which is given to students in grades 3 through 8. The Maine High School Assessment includes an augmented SAT for all 11 graders. The MEA and the augmented SAT have been aligned with the Learning Results, with individual student scores being reported in Language Arts, Mathematics, Writing and Science in grades 4, 8, and 11. Maine's University system maintains a student unit record system that reports on student performance in the postsecondary system. Performance-based budgeting and reporting requirements are in place by board policy. (Last updated 2008)

Maryland

Maryland has developed an extensive unit record reporting system, including an Enrollment Information System (EIS), a High school Graduate System (HGS) a Transfer Student System (TSS), a Degree Information System (DIS) and Workforce Data System (WDS), which provides support for longitudinal studies through cohort based tracing and feedback information to colleges and K-12 systems, and fulfills state reporting requirements to the General Assembly. MHEC has also developed a unit record financial aid data collection system designed to evaluate the effectiveness of Maryland's financial aid programs. The 1988 Higher Education Reorganization Act established an accountability process for public colleges and universities in Maryland. The law requires the governing boards of these institutions to submit annual performance accountability reports to the Maryland Higher Education Commission. The Commission, in turn, must review these reports and present them with its assessment and recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly. Maryland's state-aided independent colleges and universities submit periodic reports on a voluntary basis. The community colleges use 28 standard mission/mandate driven performance measures. The public four-year universities each develop a set of goals, objectives and performance measures. (Last updated 2008)

Massachussetts

The Board of Higher Education in Massachusetts manages a student unit record system that tracks enrollment, graduation and demographic data across the state's public two- and four-year institutions. It is linked to Employment Services' Unemployment Insurance data, but is not linked to the state's K-12 data systems. The K-12 data system has been rapidly developing in recent years. Legislation requires that the Massachusetts State Board of Education evaluate the performance of both school districts and individual schools on an annual basis, reporting the extent to which schools succeed in improving student performance. The Board of Higher Education is similarly charged to conduct a benchmark study at least every seven years to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the public system of higher education and to make recommendations on how the system may fulfill its mission more effectively. Massachusetts colleges and universities are required to annually report on a set of performance indicators. In addition, the legislature established a requirement for a student assessment to be administered within the system of higher education to measure student improvement between the first and fourth years of attendance in order to assess the performance of higher education institutions in fostering learning and academic growth. (Last updated 2008)

Michigan

As there is no state-level coordinating agency for higher education, there is no state-wide postsecondary student unit record system. The State Board for Education maintains a student unit record system that includes K-12 data sets, adult education and ESL recipients, and tracks students enrolled at community and technical colleges. The Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) in the Office of Management and Budget collects and reports data about Michigan's K-12 public schools to facilitate school districts' compliance with the federal No Child Left Behind Act and the Michigan Department of Education's accreditation plan, Education Yes! Due to the emphasis on institutional autonomy and governance, Michigan colleges and universities are not required to regularly report on performance. (Last updated 2008)

Minnesota

The Minnesota legislature directed the establishment of computerized state information systems. K-12 information is collected as part of a state record system maintained by the Minnesota Department of Education. The Minnesota Office of Higher Education maintains a postsecondary student unit record data system for both public and private institutions that tracks enrollment and degree databases to analyze current and future higher education needs, compares enrollment or graduation patterns among Minnesota institutions and others, describes student characteristics, tracks the awarding of degrees and certificates, and allocates campus-based financial aid. The two data systems are separate because of strict privacy statutes put in place by the legislature, but statutory language was passed in 2007 that will enable sharing of student data under certain circumstances. The legislature has directed that the governing boards of the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota state colleges and universities, in conjunction with their respective campuses, specify performance categories and indicators to be used for policy and appropriations decisions. Each system also has developed its own accountability system. The University of Minnesota's system can be found at www.academic.umn.edu/accountability/index.html. The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities has an interactive web-based dashboard that includes 10 measures at the system, sector and individual institution levels. The Accountability Dashboard can be found at: www.mnscu.edu/board/accountability/index.html. (Last updated 2008)

Mississippi

The Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) that governs the eight public four-year colleges and universities in Mississippi maintains a student unit record system but it does not cross education sectors. Since the 1996 fiscal year, the appropriation bills enacted each year to provide funding for each state agency or higher education institution includes performance targets for a set of performance measures that are established and reported annually by each college or university. (Last updated 2008)

Missouri

The Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education (CBHE) has approved a revised statewide Coordinated Plan, "Imperatives for Change: Building a Higher Education System for the 21st Century." The Coordinated Plan, approved in July, 2008, was developed through extensive collaboration with Missouri's higher education institutions and other interested stakeholders, and outlines a public agenda for higher education in the state. In addition, in June, 2008, the CBHE approved the final report of Missouri's Higher Education Funding (HEF) Task Force, which will outline a new framework for annual appropriations requests on behalf of public institutions in the state. Together, these initiatives will inform a redesigned annual report intended to spotlight strengths and identify areas for improvement in the state's system of higher education, as well as to assist ongoing strategic planning. Though Missouri has a long history of postsecondary accountability reporting, the new report will link published performance measures to commonly agreed goals and objectives and will include information on additional performance measures chosen and reported on by the state's public institutions. The report will be an area of focus for MDHE staff throughout the 2008-09 academic year, and will leverage several available data sources, including the state's unit-record data collected from public postsecondary institutions, IPEDS and other nationally-recognized data sources, and additional information to be provided by the state's colleges and universities. MDHE staff will also work closely with the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) to leverage developing unit-record data collected from the state's public K-12 sector, in order to ensure that all sectors of the state's educational system are equipped for informed decision-making regarding student preparation and success. (Last updated 2008)

Montana

Montana has been developing a statewide student unit record system for several years and has set a goal of the 2006 strategic plan to improve data systems. The Board of Regents reports on six policy goals developed by the Joint Subcommittee for Postsecondary Education Budget and Planning, including: preparing students for success, measured by completion and retention rates; promoting access and affordability, measured by affordability comparisons with other states and state support per capita; the delivery of efficient and coordinated services, measured by transferability and measurement of expenditures; being responsive to market and employment needs and opportunities, as measured by job placement rates and FTE enrollment, certificates and degrees conferred; contributions to Montana's economic and social success, as measured by research and development grants and technology transfers; and, collaboration with the K-12 schools system and other postsecondary education systems, as measured by collaborative programs and average SAT or ACT scores of first-time full-time university system freshmen. Performance on these accountability measures are not directly linked to fiscal appropriations from the state. (Last updated 2008)

Nebraska

Nebraska is developing a K-12 student record system but does not use a student unit record data system to track students across educational sectors. The Postsecondary Coordinating Commission tracks enrollments and other institutionally based data for reporting purposes though the Nebraska Educational Data System (NEEDS). The Commission provides a statutorily required report on a variety of performance measures called the "Nebraska Higher Education Progress Report" to the legislature annually. Local governing boards set measurable outcomes and benchmarks appropriate to their role and mission that reflect their productivity and the outcomes and benefits of their instruction, research, and public service roles. (Last updated 2008)

Nevada

Nevada maintains a fairly comprehensive longitudinal data system for K-12 that is linked to higher education data systems. Nevada Board of Regents policy establishes an accountability system whereby institutions are directed to provide periodic follow-up information on cost estimates and enrollment projections provided in the program proposal process. As instructed by the legislature, the system issues an annual accountability report that contains a "reconciliation" schedule of the legislative Approved Budget to the Regents' Approved Budget for each appropriation area of the System. The reconciliation schedule shows the campuses' allocation and budgeting of funds from the maintenance and enhancement decision units to the appropriate functional areas of the Board of Regents' approved operating budget. (Last updated 2008)

New Hampshire

The Governor's P-16 Working Group is currently studying methods for linking K-12 and higher education student and institution data and will report its findings in 2009. In 2006 New Hampshire began collecting student unit records for K-12. School accountability and performance are measured in compliance with No Child Left Behind using grade level expectations and by a state K-12 academic growth model. A data warehouse and decision support system, with an anticipated completion date in late 2010, is under development. State law currently prohibits sharing the K-12 student identifier with higher education. The community college has made progress with standardizing readiness assessment, with six of seven colleges using Accuplacer, and common cut-scores. All campuses publish math competency requirements. Students have the option to access college-level work in high school through a Running Start program that is currently available in a traditional delivery model and will be available online in the Fall. There is no direct link with K-12 assessment standards. The system is also working to provide articulation agreements for seamless transitions from high schools and to four-year colleges and universities. (Last updated 2008)

New Jersey

New Jersey has a postsecondary student unit record system, and is in the process of developing a K-12 longitudinal database. Since 1994, New Jersey public colleges and universities have been required by law to prepare and submit an annual accountability report. These reports serve as an update of the condition of the institutions and include academic offerings; accreditation status; major capital projects; a profile of the student body, including student graduation rates; and a profile of faculty and trustees. The Commission on Higher Education posts each accountability report (known as the Institutional Profile) on its website to inform the general public of the roles and accomplishments of institutions of higher education. (Last updated 2008)

New Mexico

New Mexico has maintained a postsecondary student-based tracking system since 1994 and has made rapids gains in recent years developing a comprehensive longitudinal data system for K-12. This system continues to advance and is expected to link to the higher education data system in 2009. In 2003 a Higher Education performance fund was created (NM Statute 21-1-27.3 and 4) to be distributed to colleges and universities to enhance the contribution of postsecondary educational institutions to the resolution of critical state issues and the advancement of the welfare of state citizens. Enhancement funds are designed to support instructional programs that meet critical workforce training needs, enhance instruction that provides employment opportunities for New Mexico students in the global economy, and mission-specific instructional programs that build on existing institutional academic strengths. (Last updated 2008)

New York

New York has been gradually building a statewide student data system for K-12 and expects to be able to link K-12 and postsecondary data by 2011. Both the SUNY and CUNY systems maintain student unit record systems to track students who transfer to public institutions within the state. New York does not have a statewide accountability report for higher education, although the Board of Regents does require reporting on some performance issues including graduation rates and transfer activity. Other performance measures come from reports generated by the CUNY and SUNY systems. For example, at CUNY, accountability is achieved by measuring colleges' annual progress towards key performance targets - many tied directly to student outcomes - and rewarding performance by presidents and their leadership teams commensurate with those results. Over the next few years, CUNY will continue to monitor three broad sets of objectives: raising academic quality, improving student success, and enhancing financial and management effectiveness. (Last updated 2008)

North Carolina

North Carolina has instituted a comprehensive student unit record system that tracks students across postsecondary sectors. NC Statute 115D-31.3 creates accountability measures and performance standards for the state's community college system. Colleges are required to report annually on 12 performance standards identified in statute. Colleges are able to retain and carry forward up to 2 percent of final fiscal year general fund appropriations for successful performance on performance measures. The University of North Carolina has established 20 performance standards, which includes measures that require institutions to increase transfer rates of students who earn an associate's degree, and improvement in retention and graduation rates. The UNC system office tracks the performance of high school graduates in the 16 constituent universities and provides an annual report to each high school in the state regarding the performance of their graduates who attend public universities in NC. The Department of Public Instruction supports an extensive system of accountability through a set of end of grade and end of course tests that are the basis for assessing the progress of primary and secondary schools in North Carolina. North Carolina has a Data Project to build a data warehouse to further facilitate the exchange of data among the Department of Public Instruction, the North Carolina Community College System, and the University of North Carolina and to do longitudinal studies of student progress from school through postsecondary education. (Last updated 2008)

North Dakota

The North Dakota University System maintains a student unit record data system. It is not, however, linked to the uniform accounting and reporting system implemented by the K-12 sector under the direction of the legislature. The University System is required to provide annual performance and accountability reports using a series of accountability measures under the general categories of Economic Development Connection, Education Excellence, Flexible and Responsive System, Accessible System, Funding and Rewards, and Sustaining the Vision. The Higher Education Roundtable, a group of 61 state leaders from the public and private sectors, took the performance goals identified in legislation, and developed 34 accountability measures with accompanying benchmarks. Progress toward each of the agreed upon accountability measures is included in an annual report which is presented to the legislature and other key stakeholders. (Last updated 2008)

Ohio

State statutes have established an Access Improvement program at the Ohio Board of Regents to develop innovative statewide strategies to increase the college attendance and success rate of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented in higher education. This language established the Ohio Appalachian Center for Higher Education as well as other initiatives specifically focused on improving the aspiration and readiness of students to pursue higher education. The Ohio Appalachian Center for Higher Education focuses specifically on Ohio's 29 Appalachian counties. Ohio's primary early outreach initiative is the Ohio College Access Network (OCAN). OCAN is a collaboration of local college access programs that seek to close the education deficit in Ohio by increasing the number of students in their communities who pursue education beyond high school. Currently, OCAN college access programs provide financial aid counseling, last dollar scholarships, and early awareness advising to more than 58,000 students in 245 school districts throughout the state. Ohio also maintains a portal, the Higher Education Information (HEI) system, which contains data supplied by Ohio's colleges and universities. It is a comprehensive relational database that includes data on students, courses, faculty, facilities, and finances. The Board of Regents also collects data from institutions and reports on higher education outcome measures in the areas of enrollment, preparation, transfer, academic progress, degree production and graduates' employment, financial issues, affordability, high school to college transition reports and periodic special reports. (Last updated 2008)

Oklahoma

Oklahoma has operated a comprehensive student unit record system since 1977 which is linked to state Unemployment Insurance wage, CareerTech, and ACT records and is used in support of its comprehensive accountability reporting and budgeting system. Legislation passed in 1991 paved the way for the development of a comprehensive assessment plan by allowing institutions to charge students up to one dollar per credit hour to support student assessment efforts. The plan requires the systematic collection, interpretation, and use of information about student learning and achievement to improve instruction. The policy also addresses the need to demonstrate public accountability by providing evidence of institutional effectiveness. Each institution must evaluate students at four levels including: entry level to determine academic preparation and course placement; mid-level, to determine general education competencies; program outcomes (exit level) to evaluate outcomes in the student's major; and student satisfaction, to ascertain students' perceptions of their educational experiences. The State Regents publish a state-level report card with goals for measures along the lines of the national report card "Measuring Up." (Last updated 2008)

Oregon

The Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development maintains OCCURS, the Oregon Community College Unified Reporting System while the Oregon University System maintains SCARF, the Student Centralized Administrative Reporting File. Both are comprehensive unit record databases of students, courses, instructors, registrations, and completions. Students can be tracked from one system to the other through long standing unit record data sharing. Special studies have linked these two data sources with the Department of Education's K-12 unit record data to examine the effectiveness of certain programs and policies. Efforts are underway to create a single research data warehouse (absent personal identifiers) for studying the behaviors and performance of students as they pass through the various educational sectors within the state. (Last updated 2008)

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania has developed a student unit record data system that tracks students in K-12; extension to the public universities comprising the State System of Higher Education and community colleges is underway. The Board of Governors of the State System of Higher Education has adopted a system of performance metrics to facilitate continuous improvement at and among its institutions and to demonstrate accountability of the state system and its member institutions. Performance indicators assess the institutional progress related to student advancement, efficiency/costs and diversity. Performance on the indicators is linked to institutional budgets. The state's community colleges, which fall under the State Board of Education, are not required to report on their performance. (Last updated 2008)

Rhode Island

Rhode Island is developing a comprehensive K-12 student data system. The Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education have several performance-based priorities for higher education, including: improving the preparation of Rhode Island's residents to succeed in higher education through preK-16/20 collaboration; improving participation and graduation rates in higher education; producing a more competitive workforce; and, promoting economic development and social well-being. The Board reports on a slate of performance indicators for higher education, including: SAT scores, enrollment, tuition, retention, graduation and transfer rates, completions per FTE and total, and minority shares among students and staff. The state also maintains an "incentive fund for excellence," which is be used by the board of governors to fund program initiatives to improve the quality of the undergraduate education offered by the institutions of public higher education. (Last updated 2008)

South Carolina

The South Carolina Commission on Higher Education (SCCHE) maintains a student unit record data system that tracks students at all public two- and four-year colleges and universities in the state, and many private institutions as well. The data are used to support state accountability and graduation/retention reporting, as well in the awarding of scholarships. In 1996, the South Carolina legislature adopted the most comprehensive postsecondary performance funding system in the nation. Since that time, funding for colleges and universities has considered performance in achieving standards in nine areas, known as critical success factors. Recent budget and policy changes have frozen the system in place, with scoring largely deferred pending further legislative policy decisions. Data collection has continued on a revised list of 13 indicators as necessary to meet state and federal legislative mandates. (Last updated 2008)

South Dakota

The South Dakota Board of Regents manages student data for the six public universities within the system to prepare regular and special reports for the Board and elected officials, as well as perform analysis on factors that influence student performance, persistence, and retention. The separate student record systems of the universities were merged into a unified database in 2003. At that time numerous policies were standardized including the establishment of a common admission application, grading, course numbering, and course catalogue to aid in student transferability throughout the Regent system. Under this system each student has one record regardless of the number of universities attended. K-12 student data are the responsibility of the Department of Education. The Legislature directed the Department to establish a uniform system for the gathering and reporting of educational data and evaluation of student progress. To further support these efforts, the Board of Regents and the Department of Education collaborate to share data electronically, and are working on a partnership to create a Longitudinal Data System that would allow both entities to track students throughout their elementary, secondary and post-secondary career. (Last updated 2008)

Tennessee

The Tennessee Board of Regents, the University of Tennessee System, and the Tennessee Independent Colleges and Universities Association submit various student-level data files on a term or annual basis to the Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC) to support institutional funding allocation processes, lottery scholarship assessment, and other reporting requirements. As a result, THEC has compiled a longitudinal Student Information Systems linking student enrollment, achievement, and graduation records over time, from the mid-1990s to the present. THEC in 1979 was the first coordinating board in the country to adopt a performance funding system for higher education, linking performance on a set of indicators to institutional budget allocations. Tennessee public institutions continue to monitor their progress in an annual report card on 12 performance indicators that fall under the five standards of Student Learning Environment & Outcomes, Student Satisfaction, Student Persistence, State Master Plan Priorities, and Assessment Outcomes. The Master Plan is revised every five years, as are the performance funding standards and indicators that flow from the plan. The next five-year master planning cycle for Tennessee higher education is 2010-2015. (Last updated 2008)

Texas

Texas uses the Higher Education Accountability System to track performance on critical measures that exemplify higher education institutions' missions. The System is modeled on the state's higher education plan, Closing the Gaps by 2015, and provides data for the state's public universities and health-related institutions, and public community, technical, and state colleges. The System has three essential components: (1) Key Accountability Measures, which include five categories of measures (Participation, Success, Excellence, Research, and Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiencies) for the general academic and two-year institutions (health-related institutions include an additional area for patient care; two-year institutions exclude the research measure); (2) Contextual/Explanatory Measures, which include additional measures to help place the key accountability measures in context and/or to better describe the efforts of each institution; and (3) Institutional Explanation and Description, which includes each institution's further information, explanation, and up to two additional measures desired by a particular institution. An important aspect of the Texas Higher Education Accountability System is to help improve institutional performance, not just measure it. To serve this purpose, institutions have been grouped for "like" comparisons. Peer groups meet to exchange information and work on institutional improvement. The groups are neither permanent nor prescriptive and are reviewed every two years to reflect institutional changes as well as changing higher education needs. (Last updated 2008)

Utah

The Utah System of Higher Education (USHE) maintains a student unit record database that tracks students across the state's two- and four year colleges. It is indirectly linked to the state's K-12 system and other state datasets through common student identifiers. USHE is required by statute to establish multiple measures of institutional and student assessment in order to improve student instruction, academic programs and learning opportunities. The Board of Regents must submit a biennial accountability report to the legislature, which includes data on such factors as space utilization, faculty productivity, time to completion, scores on normed tests, and other measures related to the management of institutional resources. The Board is also required to assess and report on student achievement at the time of entry to each institution at critical midway points and at the student's exit. (Last updated 2008)

Vermont

The Vermont State Board of Education (BOE) has developed a longitudinal student database that supports the tracking of K-12 student achievement, enrollment, and graduation records over time. The BOE requires the adoption of student performance standards and a system of continuous improvement in student performance for the K-12 system of education in Vermont. Each public K-12 school is required to develop and implement a comprehensive system of assessment and an action plan to improve the performance of all students enrolled in the school. Student performance results are to be reported on annual basis to the community. There are no statutes or state policies regarding accountability for postsecondary institutions in Vermont. The Vermont State Colleges have voluntarily developed a set of performance indicators that are published annually. (Last updated 2008)

Virginia

Virginia has a K-12 student longitudinal data system along with a postsecondary data system and expects to link these two systems in 2009. In 2007, the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) released a strategic plan for 2007-2013 that lays out the vision for higher education in the state. The plan consists of 12 statewide goals focused on three major themes: access, alignment, and investment. The intent of the plan is: to establish clarity about state priorities; to inform a coordinated system of higher education within which distinctive institutions may operate with a high degree of autonomy; and to serve state and national needs at the high level of quality Virginians have come to expect from their institutions of higher education. (Last updated 2008)

Washington

The baccalaureate schools and community and technical college system each have its own comprehensive student record systems that can be linked with each other, as well as to state unemployment insurance wage data, high school unit records, and those of the welfare system. The University of Washington informs colleges annually about the GPAs of transfer students compared with students who entered the university as freshmen. Revised Code of Washington requires that the higher education coordinating board, in conjunction with the state board for community and technical colleges, report every two years to the legislature the accomplishments of the postsecondary educational system in the state of Washington. The four-year colleges and universities report on seven measures: degree production for bachelor's degrees, high demand bachelor's degrees and advanced degrees, freshman retention, six-year graduation rates, three-year graduation rates for select transfer students, and a bachelor's degree efficiency measure. The institutions report outcomes for these same measures for students receiving Pell Grants. Each baccalaureate institution also reports outcomes for up to three additional institution-specific measures. The State Board for Community Colleges reports on the number of two-year degrees awarded, number of students defined as "transfer-ready," the number of job-ready student and the percentage increase in the students with gains in basic skills. In addition, the State Board has implanted a new Student Achievement Initiative that rewards institutions for increasing the numbers of students who achieve certain benchmarks in terms of credit completion. (Last updated 2008)

Washington D.C.

The State Education Office (SEO) of the District of Columbia has been charged with developing student data sets to be used for tracking and reporting purposes for publicly funded K-12 schools in the District. The Office of Post-Secondary Education, Research, and Assistance (OPERA), a division of the SEO, administers programs including grants, loans, and internships. OPERA provides post-secondary education information to DC residents and administers federal grants to DC institutions of higher learning. OPERA also disseminates statistical data and information, is responsible for collecting and reporting federal Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data, and acts as a liaison between agencies and institutions of higher learning. (Last updated 2008)

West Virginia

The West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission maintains a student unit record data system to assist in linking student enrollment and graduation records over time and between state institutions. Statutes require the governing boards of higher education to make information available to the public and state policymakers on the quality and performance of public higher education. Institutional and system indicators that measure student performance, institutional effectiveness, and cost efficiencies are to be reported on annually. The Policy Commission has established performance indicators recommended for use in measuring the degree to which the strategic issues identified in the statewide higher education plan are being met. They include 20 indicators grouped around the strategic issues of student preparation, participation, affordability, efficiency and productivity, and outcomes. (Last updated 2008)

Wisconsin

The University of Wisconsin system and the State Technical College system each maintain student unit record data systems. The University of Wisconsin system has set a series of six accountability goals with 20 related performance indicators that they track each year and report on to the legislature and to the public. These accountability goals and performance indicators are currently being revised to reflect recently developed strategic goals and priorities. Institutional budgets are influenced in response to the priorities of the accountability system. (Last updated 2008)

Wyoming

The University of Wyoming prepares an annual report to the Governor and Legislature on progress made on certain institutional performance benchmarks, including student enrollment, retention, and graduation; student satisfaction with academic, administrative, and student support services; student performance on national examinations; external research funding and technology transfer; and private fundraising. These data are made available through the annual strategic planning report required of state agencies by statute, but are also reviewed with the Governor and the Legislature by the University President on an annual basis prior to each legislative session. The Wyoming Community College Commission (WCCC) coordinates with the seven community colleges to track students across the state's system. The community college system has adopted 13 indicators of institutional effectiveness recommended by the American Association of Community Colleges Council on Vocational Education, including: student goal attainment; persistence; degree completion rates; placement rate in the workforce; employer assessment of students; licensure/certification pass rates; client assessment of programs and services; demonstration of critical literacy skills; number and rate who transfer; performance after transfer; success in subsequent related coursework; participation rate in the service area; and, responsiveness to community needs. Every other year when the Wyoming legislature approves budgets, the WCCC uses a base plus funding allocation model to distribute the funds. (Last updated 2008)