The Attainment Agenda: State Policy Leadership in Higher Education

9. Lessons Learned: Conclusions and Implications

Chapter 9 Lessons Learned Conclusions and Implications The importance of understanding how to improve higher education performance has never been greater, since educational attainment is increasingly required for the economic and social well-­being not only of individuals but also of society. As Joseph Stiglitz argues, greater educational attainment will contribute “to a more efficient and dynamic economy.”1 Despite the well-­ defined need for higher levels of educational attainment, all five of our selected states—like all U.S. states—must increase attainment if they are to be economically prosperous into the future. The magnitude and types of improvements that are required differ, as Georgia, for instance, must improve transfer between its technical colleges and its public colleges and universities and Washington must increase its production of bachelor’s degrees. The direction of recent trends in higher education performance also varies across states, as higher education performance is low but improving in Texas and relatively high but declining in Illinois. These variations notwithstanding, however, current levels of higher education attainment in all states are below socially optimal levels. Moreover, the in-­ migration of college-­ educated workers (especially in Maryland and Washington) masks the degree of improvement in higher education attainment (especially with regard to college preparation) that is required for the native population. Like other U.S. states, all five of our selected states must also do more to close Lessons Learned  201 the many gaps in higher educational attainment. Our analyses point to the importance of eliminating differences based not only on race/ethnicity and family income—characteristics that scholars typically highlight when assessing inequality —but also other characteristics including place of residence. As has been established in other research using other sources of data, higher education outcomes in the five states studied are consistently lower for Blacks and Hispanics than for Whites, and lower for those from lower-­ income than from higher-­ income families . Our state analyses also reveal variations in attainment based on age, with three of our five states (Georgia, Texas, and Washington) showing lower levels of educational attainment for younger adults (those age 25 to 34) than older adults (those age 45 to 64).2 States must also consider variations in higher education outcomes based on geography. Our analyses show that higher educational attainment is especially low in the urban centers of Atlanta, Baltimore, and Chicago and in the rural areas of Washington, and that it varies considerably across the many large regions of Texas. In short, despite the presence of numerous government policies, the opportunity to enroll in and complete college continues to vary dramatically across and within states. As described in chapter 1, states are unlikely to realize the overall levels of higher educational attainment that are required to meet projected workforce needs without closing these gaps. Progress is also essential if we as a society are to reduce continuing inequality in other indicators of individual and societal economic and social well-­ being. Across nations, policies that improve high school and college completion promote income equality, whereas policies that improve equity in educational attainment foster equity in employment outcomes and increase productivity.3 The five preceding chapters paint detailed pictures of the forces that explain the patterns of higher education performance within each state during the time period examined. It is tempting to conclude from these portraits that the forces that influence higher education attainment are highly idiosyncratic and are determined only by state-­ specific contextual characteristics, including the unique demographic, economic, political, historical, and cultural context and the particular configuration of a state’s higher education system and structures. Nonetheless, although providing vivid illustrations of the need to consider the state-­ specific context, our cross-­ case analyses also reveal the essential role that state policy can and must play in improving higher education performance. To raise higher educational attainment to the level required to meet workforce de- 202   The Attainment Agenda mands and improve equity across groups, state policy must intentionally address the current societal needs for higher education in ways that recognize the state’s particular and evolving context. This final chapter first describes the conceptual model that emerges from our analyses. The model draws from the findings from the state studies and builds on the guiding perspectives discussed in chapter 2. While each state chapter provides a rich picture of how public policy explains higher education performance within the multiple dimensions of a state’s specific context...