Public Policy and Higher Education: Reframing Strategies for Preparation, Access, and College Success

Full text

Public Policy and Higher Education provides readers with new ways to analyze complex
state policies and offers the tools to examine how policies affect students’ access and
success in college. Rather than arguing for a single approach, the authors examine how
policymakers and higher education administrators can work to inform and influence
change within systems of higher education using research-based evidence along with
consideration of political and historical values and beliefs. Raising new questions and
examining recent developments, this updated edition is an invaluable resource for
graduate students, administrators, policymakers, and researchers who seek to learn more
about the crucial contexts underlying policy decisions and college access.
Special Features:
• Case Studies—allow readers to examine strategies used by different types of col-
leges to improve access and retention.
• Reflective Exercises—encourage readers to discuss state and campus context for
policy decisions and to think about the strategies used in a state or institution.
• Approachable Explanations—unpack complex public policies and financial
strategies for readers who seek understanding of public policy in higher education.
• Research-Based Recommendations—explore how policymakers, higher education
administrators, and faculty can work together to improve quality, diversity, and
financial stewardship.
• New epilogues and a revised Part III—reexamine themes and encourage critical
thinking about inequality and policy change.
Edward P. St. John is a 2017–18 Fulbright Scholar at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland
and is Professor of Higher Education Emeritus at the University of Michigan, USA.
Nathan Daun-Barnett is Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy at the
University of Buffalo, State University of New York, USA.
Karen M. Moronski-Chapman is Associate Director of Data Analytics at Daemen
College, USA.
Public Policy and
Higher Education

Core Concepts in Higher Education
Series Editors: Edward P. St. John and Marybeth Gasman
The History of U.S. Higher Education: Methods for Understanding the Past
Edited by Marybeth Gasman
Understanding Community Colleges
Edited by John S. Levin and Susan T. Kater
Public Policy and Higher Education: Reframing Strategies for Preparation, Access, and
College Success
Edward P. St. John, Nathan Daun-Barnett, and Karen M. Moronski-Chapman
Organizational Theory in Higher Education
Kathleen Manning
Diversity and Inclusion: Supporting Racially and Ethnically Underrepresented Students
in Higher Education
Rachelle Winkle-Wagner and Angela M. Locks
Fundraising and Institutional Advancement: Theory, Practice, and New Paradigms
Noah D. Drezner and Frances Huehls
Student Development Theory in Higher Education: A Social Psychological Approach
Terrell L. Strayhorn
Law and Social Justice in Higher Education
Crystal Renee Chambers
Qualitative Inquiry in Higher Education Organization and Policy Research
Penny Pasque and Vicente Lechuga
American Higher Education: Issues and Institutions
John R. Thelin

Public Policy and
Higher Education
Reframing Strategies for Preparation,
Access, and College Success
Edward P. St. John, Nathan Daun-Barnett,
and Karen M. Moronski-Chapman
SECOND EDITION

Second edition published 2018
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
The right of Edward P. St. John, Nathan Daun-Barnett, and Karen M.
Moronski-Chapman to be identified as the authors of this work has been
asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Routledge 2013
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-138-65549-2 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-65550-8 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-62245-3 (ebk)
Typeset in Minion
by Apex CoVantage, LLC

v
List of Tables vii
List of Figures ix
List of Text Boxes xv
Series Editor Introduction xvii
Preface xix
Acknowledgments xxv
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
PART I THE NATIONAL POLICY DISCOURSE 19
Chapter 2 Political Ideologies and Policy Matters 21
Chapter 3 Policy Frames and Market Forces 36
Chapter 4 College Preparation 54
Chapter 5 Access to Higher Education 78
Chapter 6 College Success and Degree Completion 106
Epilogue I Federal Update 126
PART II CASE STUDIES 135
Chapter 7 The Old Liberal Model: The California Case 137
CONTENTS

vi • Contents
Chapter 8 The Market Model: The Minnesota Case 159
Chapter 9 Comprehensive Strategy: The Indiana Case 178
Chapter 10 Unfettered Neoliberalism: The Michigan Case 199
Chapter 11 The New Progressive South: The North Carolina Case 223
Epilogue II State Cases 243
PART III POLICY STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 255
Chapter 12 Policy Frames 257
Chapter 13 Policy Research 268
Chapter 14 Globalizing Contexts 277
Notes 285
References 291
Index 316

vii
Table 0.1 Book Organization, Learning Objectives, and Analytic
Skills Development xxiv
Table 1.1 Changes in Political Ideologies Influencing Higher Education 7
Table 2.1 Comparison of the National Progressive and Global Corporate
Periods for University Missions 34
Table 4.1 State K–12 Policy Indicators for Selected Years, 1990–2010 65
Table I.1 Tuition Charges by Sector, 2015–16 and 2016–17 128
Table 8.1 Average Cumulative Debt for Students Who Borrowed,
2007–2008, for the United States and Minnesota 163
Table 11.1 Characteristics of UNC Carolina Covenant Scholars 225
Table 11.2 Change in Retention Rates Among Covenant-Eligible Students
in the 2003 (Control Group) and 2004 Cohorts at the University
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 225
Table 12.1 Frames Embedded in Case-Study States’ K–16 Policies and
Adaptations to the New Federal Policy Trajectory 261
TABLES

ix
Figure 2.1 Trends in Federal Research and Development by Agency,
1976–2008 30
Figure 2.2 Trends in Federal Research and Development, Defense, Nondefense,
and Basic, 1976–2008 31
Figure 3.1 Academic Pathways Theory of Change 45
Figure 3.2 Framework for Assessing the Impact of Federal and State Policy
on Postsecondary Attainment 47
Figure 4.1 U.S. Public High School Graduation Rates for 9th-Grade Cohorts
by Race/Ethnicity 67
Figure 5.1 Trends in Average State Need-Based and Non-Need-Based
Undergraduate Grants per FTE, 1992–2008 85
Figure 5.2 Trends in Average Annual Amount of State and Local
Appropriations per FTE for the Public Higher
Education System 85
Figure 5.3 Trends in the Average Amount of Undergraduate In-State
Tuition and Fees per FTE in Public Higher Education System
in the United States, 1992–2008 86
Figure 5.4 Trends in the Average per FTE Funding of Need-Based Grants
as a Percent of the Average Public College Tuition Charge
for Full-Time Students 87
Figure 5.5 The Gap Between the Actual Maximum Pell Award and
University Attendance Costs 88
Figure 5.6 Trends in U.S. College Continuation Rate (Ratio of High
School Graduates to First-Time Freshmen) 91
FIGURES

x • Figures
Figure 5.7 Racial/Ethnic Representation in All Public 2-Year Postsecondary
Institutions as a Proportion of the U.S. Population 93
Figure 5.8 Racial/Ethnic Representation in All Public 4-Year Postsecondary
Institutions as a Proportion of the U.S. Population 94
Figure 6.1 Trends in Graduation Rates in All Postsecondary Institutions 116
Figure 6.2 Trends in Graduation Rates in All Public 2-Year Postsecondary
Institutions 117
Figure 6.3 Trends in Graduation Rates in All Public 4-Year Postsecondary
Institutions 118
Figure 6.4 Trends in Graduation Rates in All Private Nonprofit
Postsecondary Institutions 119
Figure 6.5 Trends in Graduation Rates in All Private For-Profit
Postsecondary Institutions 121
Figure 7.1 California High School Graduation Requirements 143
Figure 7.2 Trends in Weighted Average Tuition Charges by the California
Public Higher Education System, 1992–2008 144
Figure 7.3 Trends in California and U.S. Average Annual Amount of State
and Local Appropriations per FTE for Public Higher Education 145
Figure 7.4 Trends in California and U.S. Need-Based Undergraduate
Grants per FTE 146
Figure 7.5 Trends in California and U.S. Ratios of Need-Based Grants
as a Percent of State Tuition 146
Figure 7.6 Trends in California Public High School Graduation Rates by
Race/Ethnicity 148
Figure 7.7 Trends in the Percent of California and U.S. Students Who
Took the SAT 149
Figure 7.8 Trends in Average California and U.S. SAT Math Scores 149
Figure 7.9 Trends in Average SAT Verbal Scores in California and the
United States 150
Figure 7.10 Trends in the California and U.S. College Continuation Rates 151
Figure 7.11 Racial/Ethnic Representation in California Public 4-Year
Postsecondary Institutions as a Proportion of the State Population 152
Figure 7.12 Racial/Ethnic Representation in California Public 2-Year
Postsecondary Institutions as a Proportion of the State Population 153
Figure 7.13 Trends in Graduation Rates in California Public 4-Year
Postsecondary Institutions 154
Figure 7.14 Graduation Rates in California Public 2-Year Postsecondary
Institutions 155

Figures • xi
Figure 8.1 Paying for College: Students, Families, Taxpayers, and the
State Grant Model 162
Figure 8.2 Minnesota High School Graduation Requirements 164
Figure 8.3 Trend in Minnesota’s Average Annual Amount of State and
Local Appropriations per FTE for the Public Higher Education
System Compared with the National Average 165
Figure 8.4 Trend in Minnesota’s Average Amount of Undergraduate In-State
Tuition and Fees for the Public Higher Education System 165
Figure 8.5 Trend in Minnesota’s State Need-Based Undergraduate Grants
per FTE Compared with the National Average 166
Figure 8.6 Trend in Minnesota Need-Based Grants as a Percent of State
Tuition Compared with the National Average 167
Figure 8.7 Trends in Percent of Minnesota and U.S. Students Who
Took the ACT 168
Figure 8.8 Trends in Average Composite ACT Scores for Minnesota
and the United States 168
Figure 8.9 Trends in Minnesota Public High School Graduation Rates
by Race/Ethnicity 169
Figure 8.10 Trends in Minnesota’s College Continuation Rate Compared
with the National Average 170
Figure 8.11 Trends in Racial/Ethnic Representation in Minnesota Public
2-Year Postsecondary Institutions as a Proportion of the
State Population 171
Figure 8.12 Trends in Racial/Ethnic Representation in Minnesota Public
4-Year Postsecondary Institutions as a Proportion of the
State Population 172
Figure 8.13 Trends in Graduation Rates in Minnesota Public 2-Year
Postsecondary Institutions by Race/Ethnic Group 173
Figure 8.14 Trends in Graduation Rates in Minnesota Public 4-Year
Postsecondary Institutions 174
Figure 9.1 Trends in Indiana’s Average Annual Amount of State and
Local Appropriations per FTE for the Public Higher
Education System Compared with the National Average 184
Figure 9.2 Trends in Indiana and U.S. Average Annual Amount of State
and Local Appropriations per FTE for the Public Higher
Education System Compared with the National Average 185
Figure 9.3 Trends in Indiana and the United States, Weighted Average
Amount of Undergraduate In-State Tuition and Fees for the
Public Higher Education System 186

xii • Figures
Figure 9.4 Trends in Indiana and U.S. State Need-Based Undergraduate
Grants per FTE 187
Figure 9.5 Trends in the Ratios of Need-Based Grants per FTE Compared
with the Weighted Average Public Tuition Charges for Indiana
and the United States 188
Figure 9.6 Trends in Indiana Public High School Graduation Rates by
Race/Ethnicity 189
Figure 9.7 Trends in Percentages of Indiana and U.S. Students Who Took
the SAT 189
Figure 9.8 Trends in Average Indiana and U.S. SAT Verbal Scores 190
Figure 9.9 Trends in Average Indiana and U.S. SAT Math Scores 191
Figure 9.10 Trends in Indiana’s College Continuation Rate Compared with
the National Average 191
Figure 9.11 Trends in Racial/Ethnic Representation in Indiana Public 2-Year
Postsecondary Institutions as a Proportion of the State Population 192
Figure 9.12 Trends in Racial/Ethnic Representation in Indiana Public 4-Year
Postsecondary Institutions as a Proportion of the State Population 193
Figure 9.13 Trends in Graduation Rates in Indiana Public 2-Year Postsecondary
Institutions by Racial/Ethnic Group 194
Figure 9.14 Trends in Graduation Rates in Indiana Public 4-Year Postsecondary
Institutions by Racial/Ethnic Group 195
Figure 10.1 Michigan High School Graduation Requirements 208
Figure 10.2 Trends in Michigan and U.S. Average Annual Amount of State
and Local Appropriations per FTE for Public Higher Education 209
Figure 10.3 Trends in Michigan and U.S. Weighted Averages for Undergraduate
In-State Tuition and Fees for Public Higher Education 209
Figure 10.4 Trends in Michigan and U.S. State Need-Based Undergraduate
Grants per FTE 210
Figure 10.5 Trends in Michigan State Non-Need-Based Undergraduate
Grants per FTE 211
Figure 10.6 Trends in Michigan Need-Based Grants per FTE as a Percent of the
Weighted Average State Tuition Compared with the U.S. Average 212
Figure 10.7 Trends in Michigan Public High School Graduation Rates by
Race/Ethnicity 213
Figure 10.8 Percent of Michigan Students Who Took the ACT Compared
with the U.S. Average 214
Figure 10.9 Trends in Average Composite ACT Score in Michigan and the
United States 214

Figures • xiii
Figure 10.10 Trends in Michigan and U.S. College Continuation Rates 215
Figure 10.11 Trends in Racial/Ethnic Representation in Michigan Public 2-Year
Postsecondary Institutions as a Proportion of the State Population 216
Figure 10.12 Trends in Racial/Ethnic Representation in Michigan Public 4-Year
Postsecondary Institutions as a Proportion of the State Population 217
Figure 10.13 Trends in Graduation Rates in Michigan Public 2-Year
Postsecondary Institutions by Racial/Ethnic Group 218
Figure 10.14 Trends in Graduation Rates in Michigan Public 4-Year
Postsecondary Institutions 219
Figure 11.1 North Carolina High School Graduation Requirements 228
Figure 11.2 North Carolina Average Annual Amount of State and Local
Appropriations per FTE for the Public Higher Education System 229
Figure 11.3 Trends in Weighted Average Public Tuition Charged in North
Carolina—Average Amount of Undergraduate In-State Tuition
and Fees for the Public Higher Education System 229
Figure 11.4 North Carolina State Need-Based Undergraduate Grants per FTE 230
Figure 11.5 North Carolina Need-Based Grants as a Percent of State Tuition 231
Figure 11.6 North Carolina State Non-Need-Based Undergraduate Grants
per FTE 231
Figure 11.7 Trends in North Carolina Public High School Graduation Rates
by Race/Ethnicity 232
Figure 11.8 Trends in Percent of North Carolina Students Who Took the SAT 233
Figure 11.9 Trends in Average SAT Verbal Score in North Carolina 234
Figure 11.10 Trends in Average SAT Math Score in North Carolina 234
Figure 11.11 Trends in North Carolina’s College Continuation Rate Compared
with the National Average 235
Figure 11.12 Trends in Racial/Ethnic Representation in North Carolina Public
2-Year Postsecondary Institutions as a Proportion of the State
Population 236
Figure 11.13 Trends in Racial/Ethnic Representation in North Carolina Public
4-Year Postsecondary Institutions as a Proportion of the State
Population 237
Figure 11.14 Trends in Graduation Rates in North Carolina Public 2-Year
Postsecondary Institutions 238
Figure 11.15 Trends in Graduation Rates in North Carolina Public 4-Year
Postsecondary Institutions 239
Figure 12.1 Assumptions Embedded in Policy Rationales with Examples
from New and Old Strategies 258

xv
Text Box 1.1 Questions on Policy Contexts in States and Campuses 17
Text Box 2.1 Questions about Policy Matters 35
Text Box 3.1 Questions on Policy Frames and Market Forces 53
Text Box 4.1 Characteristics of Integrated System of 9–14 Education
Considered Part of Consensus on 9–14 Reform 59
Text Box 4.2 Questions about Academic Preparation 76
Text Box 5.1 Questions about Public Policy and College Access 105
Text Box 6.1 Questions about Policy, Persistence, and Research 125
Text Box I.1 Questions on the Federal Trajectory 134
Text Box 7.1 Discussion Questions about the California Case 157
Text Box 8.1 Questions about the Minnesota Case 176
Text Box 9.1 Questions about the Indiana Case 197
Text Box 10.1 Questions about the Michigan Case 222
Text Box 11.1 Questions about the North Carolina Case and the
Use of Policy Indicators 241
Text Box II.1 Reflecting Critically on Stability and Change in States’
Higher Education Policy Frameworks 254
Text Box 12.1 Questions about Policy Frames 266
Text Box 13.1 Questions about Design and Interpretation of Policy Studies 275
Text Box 14.1 Questions about Globalizing Contexts 283
TEXT BOXES

xvii
I have the pleasure of serving, along with Stella Flores and Ed St. John, as a coeditor of
the Core Concepts in Higher Education Series, published by Routledge Press. With this
series, we are aiming to generate core books that speak to the various themes and courses
within the field of higher education. Together, we have worked with a variety of leading
authors in higher education to write seminal works that capture the salient issues and
growth of our field.
Public Policy in Higher Education: Reframing Strategies for Preparation, Access, and
College Success, authored by Edward P. St. John, Nathan Daun-Barnett, and Karen M.
Moronski-Chapman, is one of the most important books in the Core Concepts series
and is recently updated with new information. St. John and colleagues have written a
tremendous book that has become the go-to text for public policy classes and public
policy scholars in the field of higher education. They have taken the confusing terrain of
public policy and simplified it beautifully for students and professionals alike. This book
has become a foundational text.
In the book, the authors suggest that the combination of market approaches and edu-
cational accountability schemes implemented by many states, often in disjointed and
contradictory ways, undermines states’ achievement of their goals. They provide a rich
and deeply contextualized overview of federal policy initiatives. Perhaps what we appre-
ciate most about Public Policy in Higher Education is the context and development of the
ideas presented in the book. The reader understands the history of each issue presented
rather than seeing these issues in a vacuum.
One of the many strengths of the book is its bridging of K–12 and higher education
policy. This is rarely done and, when it is, is typically not done well. In Public Policy in
Higher Education, the authors link K–12 and higher education seamlessly for the reader,
showing how the important issues connect and build on one another.
St. John and colleagues have written a reflective book that brings the work alive for
the reader as he or she tries to make sense of the myriad state and federal policies shap-
ing American higher education. They examine the topic from the macro level to the
SERIES EDITOR INTRODUCTION

xviii • Series Editor Introduction
campus level, helping the reader to understand the immediate and lasting impact of
these policies.
Above all, St. John and colleagues root the text in an unwavering commitment to
social justice.
Marybeth Gasman
Judy & Howard Berkowitz Professor of Higher Education
University of Pennsylvania
Stella Flores
Associate Professor of Higher Education
New York University

xix
Public Policy and Higher Education encourages scholars in the field of higher education
to engage with graduate students in the process of asking critical questions about the
course of educational policy in the United State. We encourage readers to reflect on the
assumptions they make when they analyze policy discourses within their state systems
and at a national level and rethink how government strategies for expanding educational
opportunity actually relate to student outcomes. The second edition includes the first
two parts of the first edition. Along with adding epilogues to the first two parts, we’ve
added a new Part III, based on reviews by professors who used the book, and developed
a clearer pedagogical focus across the volume.
WHAT’S THE SAME AS THE FIRST EDITION
We use the concept of frameworks as a way of viewing patterns of practice in government
policy on higher education that are influenced by beliefs and historical trends. Policy
frameworks function as archetypes or images of the government role. As a society, the
United States is in the midst of a shift from the classic liberal democratic model that
shaped expansion of access and equalization of postsecondary opportunity in the late-
20th century to a market system informed by a more recent convergence of neoliberal
and neoconservative ideologies that could undermine equity achieved in earlier decades.
Often, researchers and policymakers idealize images of the role of government in higher
education policy, but such idealized images are seldom realized in practice (Hossler,
Lund, Ramin-Gyurnek, Westfall, & Irish, 1997). Nonetheless, these frameworks merit
attention and discussion as means of providing more-explicit and conscious frames for
examining alternative policy decisions in states and at the federal level.
In Part I, we examine how federal policy has become a powerful force during the past
few decades in shaping and influencing the contexts of and incentives for state policy
development and adaptation of K–12 and higher education. The federal government
does not control educational systems, but federal policy has a substantial influence on
policy development in states and institutions. We explain how federal policies create
PREFACE

xx • Preface
incentives that influence state and institutional policy decisions. We examine the argu-
ments made about federal policy, the ways research was used to craft policy arguments,
and the research that has evaluated the linkages between policy decisions and educational
outcomes. Whereas research plays a role in federal policy development, it is not clear
whether research findings are used to inform rational decisions or ideological beliefs
held by policymakers who shape research and craft arguments for reform.
The chapters in Part I also review the range of federal and state mechanisms that
influence higher education institutions. We argue that the frameworks developed in this
volume can be applied to a range of substantive policy areas—and, in fact, provide a
broad framework for thinking about the government role in the early chapters—but we
leave it to readers to judge whether we have achieved this aim. Readers’ examinations of
the national trends in policies and outcomes, along with summative reviews of research
about how policy decisions link to subsequent outcomes, provide the opportunity for
readers to make their own judgments. Reading about and discussing policy rationales,
strategies in relation to outcomes, and research that links policies and outcomes can
build understanding about the alternative approaches to policy development at the fed-
eral, state, and institutional levels.
In the illustrative state cases in Part II, we encourage readers to think about how
campus policy decisions are influenced by the frameworks that state governments have
evolved as they respond to federal incentives and policies promoting the goal of expand-
ing college opportunity. We argue that it is important to examine state educational out-
comes in relation to the policies actually implemented within states and to use evidence
from research on the linkages between policy decisions and relevant educational out-
comes to test assumptions about those linkage structures. We do not assume there are
simple solutions to the problems now confronting public systems of higher education.
In fact, the case studies underscore the complexity of the problems facing states and the
need for thoughtful, well-reasoned approaches to research informed policy creation.
In the case studies section, we have chosen to maintain the cases as they were written
in the first edition. As any reader will surely recognize state, social, and political contexts
have changed significantly in several of the states and others have emerged as inter-
esting in their own rights. Colorado, for example, was the first state to shift their state
funding for higher education to a voucher system. An entire case could be written on
the Colorado experience. Georgia was the earliest to adopt a merit aid program as their
signature financial aid strategy and the program has experienced significant changes
in recently years, due largely to the increasing cost of the program and the inability
of lottery receipts to keep pace with the cost of the program. In 2017, New York State
created the Excelsior Scholarship to provide a last-dollar tuition guarantee for mid-
dle-income families, modeled after Bernie Sanders’s vision for free college education
as articulated during the 2016 presidential primaries for the Democratic candidates.
Tennessee has launched an ambitious plan to make community college education free
for every student.
We could have written any number of new cases but in review, we found that the cases
presented in the first edition captured certain archetypes of state approaches to educa-
tion that we believed were representative of state strategies today. Instead of writing new
cases, we conclude the case studies section with an Epilogue that revisits the original
cases, provides updates to each, and discusses some of the changes we have witnessed
since 2011. The state remains the primary driver of education policy in both K–12 and

Preface • xxi
higher education, and the trends we have observed over the past six years situate our
national education priorities in a global context.
The intent of the state case studies is to encourage readers to build their skills in ana-
lyzing the ways political values, beliefs, and traditions influence policy decisions and
adaptations within state systems. The case studies consider some of the ways researchers
and state officials have used research evidence about student outcomes related to prepa-
ration for, access to, and success in college as they craft and advocate for policy changes.
We pose questions for readers about what they have observed about the relationships
between policy decisions and outcomes to encourage reflection on and discussion about
state policy frameworks.
As readers look across and compare cases, it will become evident that state policies on
high school graduation, college admissions, and the financing of higher education have
an influence on who attends college and whether there is equal opportunity to attend
4-year institutions within states. It is evident that it is extremely difficult to hold together
political coalitions that can sustain comprehensive and cohesive policy frameworks that
promote equal opportunity, even when there is a history of success within a state. Indeed,
the state cases were selected because collectively they illustrate some of the ways that
state policy frameworks have been developed, adapted, and undermined over time. The
cases can be used to inform discussion about policy, research, and strategy because of
the following:
• Each of the state cases discusses the evolution of policy rationales, along with
trends in policy decisions and outcomes related to preparation, enrollment, and
degree completion. We encourage readers to use the evidence from the cases to test
their own assumptions about the linkages between policies and outcomes.
• The cases examine strategies used by different types of colleges within states—
especially 2- and 4-year public institutions—to improve access and retention. Since
our ability to consider the role of institutional strategies was constrained by the
book’s length, we encourage readers to think about the frameworks for institu-
tional action created by state and federal policy frameworks.
• The cases provide information on recent policy developments and encourage
researchers to think about how recent decisions may link to future outcomes. Pol-
icy issues change in states from year to year, so case studies of the type presented
merely provide background for contemporary policy analysis.
• The consideration of how researchers and policymakers in different states have
approached puzzling policy problems in the past can help new generations of ana-
lysts and advocates to think critically and analytically about the policy problems
they confront in their own states.
One of the cases in the original edition, Florida, was cut from the second edition due to
space limitations. Merit scholarships, the theme of the case, are widely reported on in the
higher education literature.
WHAT’S NEW IN THE SECOND EDITION
For the second edit, we added an epilogue updating trends in policies and outcomes at
both the federal and levels. We also wrote a new Part III.

xxii • Preface
Epilogues
The epilogue for Part I reexamines themes emerging across the chapters to provide a
basis for retrospective, critical thought about policy trajectories, and provides updates
on policy trends. Our purpose is to encourage critical thought about policy change:
• When do global trends and policy shifts converge to transform the trajectory of
policy and practice in higher education in the United State and globally?
• When policy changes, do ideological shift rationales tinker with the existing system
without changing the nation’s trajectory in education?
The first edition had stated Part I was an argument that trends toward privatization
of public colleges, lending-based markets for access, and corporatization of universities
as research enterprises were a major shift in the course of American and global higher
education. This argument is still central to the book.
When he ran for president in 2008, Barack Obama had acknowledged the new trajec-
tory that had emerged after the Cold War during Ronald Reagan’s administration. The
update of trends reveals Obama’s administration gave social justice advocates hope, his
policy did integrate more emphasis on equity (i.e., improve college participation rates
for the historically underrepresented), but he did not change the trajectory toward pri-
vatization and unequal markets; so, inequality in opportunity increased in enrollment
in 4-year colleges by low-income students, especially underrepresented minorities. New
policy positions by the Donald Trump administration now threaten equity gains made
by the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations. As a consequence, we
have seen a rapid increase in inequality in college access that is reminiscent of the gaps
we experienced during the Reagan years. After sharing evidence about this view of recent
history, we raise new questions for readers.
In the Part II Epilogue, written for this second edition, we examine recent develop-
ment in the case states. While political ideologies changed in some of the states, espe-
cially California and North Carolina, states adapted their policy frameworks to change
financial and admissions strategies. State frameworks, like the public higher education
institutions within states, are artifacts of history; they can be reshaped by the new polit-
ical, demographic, and economic forces, but they are ultimately establishments built to
weather the shifting winds in the course history.
In the Part II Epilogue, we raise new questions about the stability of state frameworks.
Our efforts to label states as “models” provided colorful ways to discuss the history of state
cases. However, there were substantial changes in most of the states in the intervening
years after we completed our work on the first edition. For example, Indiana substantially
altered its college access policy, falling from the lofty status it had gained in the 1990s
and early 2000s. In contrast, North Carolina took a dramatic turn in dominate political
ideologies—and can hardly be called “progressive” in the sense of public values—however,
it has most maintained a course toward social equity. We encourage readers to think
about these issues, along with what matters most, in questions at the end of Epilogue II.
A New Part III
The more recent policy and ideology changes in states and at the federal levels gave us
reason to rethink our conclusions in the first edition. We still had hope for Obama’s
capacity for change, but that hope was overly idealistic. The reviewers had good reasons
to question our optimism and we took their comments seriously.

Preface • xxiii
We wrote a new set of chapters for Part III of this second edition, but our focus of finding
remedies to inequality remain the same. The accelerating privatization and marketization
of public higher education constrains fairness in access in a period when universal college
preparation has become the norm in states. This policy has been deceptive for low-income
families: the policy promoted uplift of high school education to prepare all students for col-
lege but, at the same time most low-income families have limited financial access to public
4-year colleges. As federal and state policy analysts ponder strategies to promote degree
completion, it is essential to include critical analysis of underlying inequalities. However,
the policy puzzle of retention is undoubtedly more complex than the simple notion of
pulling policy levers, which pervades discussions of accountability in higher education.
The new chapters in Part III were written to encourage critical thinking about inequal-
ity and how it can be mitigated and perhaps remedied. Several of the case states found
ways through the puzzle—attaining periods of relative equality in opportunity across
income and racial groups—but as the winds of political ideologies shift, so do state pol-
icies. Therefore, in Part III we focus on:
• Discerning how political ideologies, policy rationales, and the uses of research in
the process of change (Chapter 12). We focus on advocacy within the current sys-
tem of education because it is unlikely that the systems and institutions will be
radically reconfigured so as they promote social justice as their core mission.
• Examining the design and interpretation of policy studies, along with strategies for
building knowledge of inequalities and remedies to it (Chapter 13). We encourage
readers to engage in policy, using research to inform local discourses on the ways
program features and funding strategies link to gaps in educational outcomes.
• Situating research and advocacy in awareness of globalizing forces of technol-
ogy, economics, and social inequality that so dramatically influence the policy,
employment and education opportunities, and managerial practices in academe
(Chapter 14).
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN AND USES OF SECOND EDITION
This second edition, like the first, is designed to be read and discussed in a sequential
order. Going through the chapters and discussing questions in the order of the chapters
can help readers to build their own understandings, ideology, and change over time. We
don’t assume we have the answers, but rather encourage critical thought.
The chapters in Part III focus on three learning objectives that run across the vol-
ume (see Table 0.1). As authors, we’ve learned more about the major shifts in federal
and states adaptive responses as we’ve written and revised the book. Many things did
change over the period between the first edition and the second. However, in spite of a
presidency based in hope for a fairer nation, the aim of the Obama presidency starting
in 2008 (see Epilogue I), we as a nation did not change the trajectory of K–12 toward
universal college preparation; instead we have effectively maintained unequal oppor-
tunity to attend and college 4-year colleges, a path established and entrenched decades
earlier.
However, there have been clear glimmers of hope, along with brief, and in some cases
sustained, periods of fairness (i.e., equitable across groups), as states have adapted to
winds of change in politics, economics, and employment. By periods of fairness, we mean

xxiv • Preface
moments in time, like the 1980s, when gaps in high school graduation and college par-
ticipation rates declined sharply and students from all backgrounds had similar chances
for educational opportunity. We are not suggesting that these earlier periods were some
sort of golden age in education, but they do mark a period in our history when we saw it
was possible to reduce opportunity gaps by race and class. It is possible that social justice
advocates within institutions and communities can muster and use research evidence
to inform policy decisions by states, and both educational and administrative practices
within higher education.
With the revisions in the second edition, Public Policy and Higher Education becomes an
improved resource for pedagogies in the field of higher education. Awareness of policy is
vital to practice in student affairs, college teaching, financial management, and many spe-
cializations in the field. It turns out that there are many thoughtful ways educators can create
and expand educational opportunities for individuals and groups facing seemingly unsur-
mountable barriers. Our hope is that engaged learning about policy will encourage more
responsible professional action in communities, colleges and universities, and state and fed-
eral agencies. Working together, using research as a tool, it is possible to make a difference.
Table 0.1 Book Organization, Learning Objectives, and Analytic Skills Development
Book Organization
Learning Objectives
Part I: National
Policy Discourse
Part II: Case Studies
(analytic skills development)
Part III: Policy Studies
(analytic skills development)
Critical thinking
about claims
regarding progress
and equity in pro-
gressive and global
periods (identify
embedded claims)
Change in inner
logics for policies
on college prepa-
ration, access
and success; uses
of research in
rationales for
new policies and
funding
Historical state frameworks
used for K–12 and higher
education; adaptive
changes in states related
to shifts in federal policy
(critical thinking about
past and possible future in
state and local education)
Shift in federal education
policy altered rationales for
citizen rights and responsi-
bilities; university missions
in research and teaching;
created new contexts for
policy research and social
action (Identify ideological
assumptions in policy)
Examine relation-
ships between
actual changes
in programs and
funding in relation
to intended and
unintended
outcomes
Changes in K–12
policy in relation
to graduation
rates across diverse
groups; changes
in aid programs
in relation to
college going and
graduation rates
by diverse groups
Within-state comparisons of
policies for preparation,
access, and success and
actual outcomes; cross-
state comparison of mod-
el features and change in
outcomes (analysis of local
developments in relation
to policy)
Shift from grand theory to
policy studies; systemic
assumptions embedded
in theory and research
methods used in policy
studies. (Critical thinking
about theory, systems logic,
and methods in design and
interpretation of policy
studies)
Interpret research in
relation to policy
contexts, claims in
policy rationales,
and intended
and unintended
outcomes
Use research
findings from
research studies
in relation to the
limits of methods
used in interpret-
ing findings for
policy rationales
Policies being considered in
states in relation to future
of state model; critical
thinking about research
questions (uses of research
and models in state and
local advocacy)
Shifts in global, national, state
and local contexts, especial-
ly increasing educational
inequality, as context for
research and action (Under-
standing engaged scholarship
supporting advocacy for
social justice)

xxv
This book combines three levels of analysis into new frameworks that readers can use to
inform and reframe policy decisions in higher education: reviews of policy discourses,
reviews of trends in policy and outcomes at the state and federal level, and reviews of
research that examines links between policies and outcomes. We encourage researchers
and policymakers to think through these multiple levels of policy data problems as they
engage in their work. This book would not have been possible without funding from the
Ford Foundation for Projects Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education at the
University of Michigan’s National Center for Institutional Diversity. The funding sup-
ported development of new policy indicators on racial inequality in higher education as
well as extended and refined indicators of changes in policies and outcomes related to
access that were developed and used in earlier research projects. Anna Chung, Daniela
Pineda, Chiayu Chen, and Krystal Williams collaborated on the development of policy
indicators. Phyllis Kreger Stillman provided editorial support throughout the project.
We gratefully acknowledge all of this support. Chelsie Hinckley, a graduate student at
the University of Buffalo, was especially helpful to us in revising, updating, and writing
text for the second edition. We also think Heather Jarrow, our Routledge editor, for her
thoughtful guidance on the second edition. The views and interpretations in the book
are the authors’ and do not represent other organizations, groups, or individuals who
provided support for this research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

1
1
INTRODUCTION
Over the past three decades, radical changes have occurred in public policies that alter the
ways in which colleges are financed and students pay for college from a long, progressive
tradition in U.S. higher education to a more neoliberal focus on accountability and indi-
vidual responsibility. A stratified market system of higher education has evolved in most
states. The primary sorting criteria in this system are students’ abilities and achievements
defined by where they attended high school. States have adjusted their educational and
school finance strategies by raising the standards for high school graduation, but these
policies have not equalized opportunities to prepare for college.
The new high school graduation policies were advocated by reformers such as the
National Governors Association (Conklin & Curran, 2005), the Gates Foundation (Hoff-
man, Vargas, Venezia, & Miller, 2007), and various other national groups (Commission
on the Skills of the American Workforce, 2007; U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
The new high school polices have been accompanied by market approaches in urban
schools (i.e., charters, vouchers, and so forth) that create systems where students make
choices of career fields and possible college majors as early as middle school (St. John,
Bigelow, Lijana, & Mass Masse, 2015).
The market policies in higher education, institutionalized in the 1970s with federal
need-based, portable grants, were developed based on arguments that free markets
improve quality, increase innovation, and reduce costs (e.g., M. Friedman, 1962; New-
man, 1971). We suggest in this text that the combination of market approaches and edu-
cational accountability schemes implemented by many states, often in disjointed and
contradictory ways, undermine states’ achievement of these goals.
While the federal government sets the directions for educational change through
financial incentives, states maintain legal authority for public systems and are responsible
for establishing policy frameworks—education and finance policies—that guide devel-
opment of education systems and expand educational opportunities for their citizens.
This disjunction between federal policy and state strategies is one of many problems
facing educational reform in the 21st century. State policy frameworks are developed
within belief and value systems about education and government held by politicians,

2 • Introduction
analysts, and citizens. Even when public officials think through how various K–12 and
higher education policies interrelate, failure to adhere to these frameworks in annual
budgeting can undermine their intent, especially as economic conditions and political
ideologies change.
Many economists have studied market forces in higher education, but the shift in
underlying policy frameworks has gone largely unstudied in economics or higher educa-
tion. There have been strong rational arguments for market models of public finance in
higher education since the middle 1960s (e.g., T. L. Freidman, 1962; Hansen & Weisbrod,
1969; Hearn & Andersen, 1995; Hossler, Lund, Ramin-Gyurnek, Westfall, & Irish, 1997).
However, new ways of thinking have developed within states as they have adapted to
new political ideologies and financial incentives, what we refer to as state policy frame-
works, which have not been studied as such. Unfortunately, these frameworks are often
disjointed and contain contradictory requirements, making it difficult for educators and
students to achieve their aims. Policy frameworks are often aligned with political ide-
ologies and beliefs that change over time, but sometimes a state can adhere to an old
framework because of tradition long after it has lost functionality. Regardless of the type
of framework states use, the interface between K–12 and higher education systems too
often is not seamless, and creates barriers for students and their families due to finan-
cial and structural inequalities perpetuated within educational systems (St. John, Hu, &
Fisher, 2011; St. John & Musoba, 2010). Yet it is possible to develop comprehensive and
cohesive policy frameworks in states that expand opportunities for their citizens to find
educational pathways that work.
Although individual policies are frequently studied and evaluated, the logic of frame-
works that link policies within states is seldom reviewed, evaluated, revised, or rede-
fined. Typically, new laws, standards, and funding schemes emerge in response to new
federal initiatives with little collective discourse within states—or even at the federal
level—about the implications for a state’s K–16 system, or the cohesiveness of path-
ways through educational systems. The federal Race to the Top competition provides a
useful illustration of the challenges we face. In 2009, President Obama signed into law
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) as a comprehensive strategy to
address the recessionary challenges facing the United States. Part of this initiative was
the creation of a $4.35 billion grant fund to incentivize states to adopt a set of neoliberal
policy priorities, including college and career readiness standards, expanded opportuni-
ties for school choice, data-informed decision making, and teacher accountability (U.S.
Department of Education, 2010). The winners were the states that most successfully
adopted the slate of policy preferences articulated by the Department of Education.
There was no expectation that states develop an integrated statewide strategy tailored to
the unique political climate of the state or the unique features of the respective educa-
tion systems. Rather, states were evaluated on the degree to which they met the federal
priorities; hundreds of millions of dollars were awarded to 12 states over the first two
phases of the competition.
Further, the economic and social contexts within states are subject to frequent and
sudden changes. For example, through most of the early 20th century, California’s pol-
icy framework for high school preparation and college opportunity was unequaled
(e.g., Kerr, 1963), but it has fallen from this lofty position in recent decades. In the cur-
rent context of federal policy and global competition in the labor market, it is import-
ant for state and campus leaders to consider forces at work when planning and leading

Introduction • 3
efforts to expand opportunity, the prevailing educational goal in nearly every state
across the country.
FEDERAL AND STATE POLICY FRAMEWORKS
Whereas federal market strategies have overtly emphasized innovation, efficiency, and
quality in recent decades, implementation of federal policies has fallen short of intent,
since tax constraints and political attitudes shift before new policies are fully imple-
mented. There is also great variability in the ways market-oriented policies have been
implemented across and within state systems of higher education and local high school
systems. Reform strategies originated by one state (e.g., Georgia’s HOPE Scholarship or
Indiana’s 21st Century Scholars) are adapted by other states, just as innovations by col-
leges (e.g., learning communities) are adapted by other campuses. A body of research has
examined the patterns of diffusion of educational policy innovations across states and
identified a number of factors related to adoption (Doyle, 2006; McLendon, Hearn, &
Deaton, 2006), but very little of this work examines whether, or the extent to which,
states adapt these strategies to the existing state context. Constraints on tax revenue and
diversity in state frameworks (i.e., public attitudes and policy traditions) make it nec-
essary to alter policies as models are adapted and altered through implementation. The
variations in state markets should be of concern to educators, policymakers, and citizens
within states because both the educational opportunities for citizens and constraints on
strategy adoption by institutions are inexorably linked to and altered by state contexts.1
Our core argument is that strategies for improving college access and reducing inequality
must be adapted to state policy contexts because of the following:
• The shift from human capital to market theories as the underlying framework of
education policy changes education in fundamental ways.
• High school graduation standards shape both patterns of high school dropout and
the extent of college preparation but not necessarily the quality of preparation.
• State grant programs—merit- and need-based aid—influence student expecta-
tions about college choices during high school as well as the ability of low- and
middle-income families to pay for different types of colleges within their states.
• Colleges craft financial aid packages to promote academic success within the con-
straints of federal and state student aid.
• Institutional strategies for improving academic success during college must be
aligned with the preparation of students.
From Human Capital Theory to Market Models
During the last half of the 20th century, education policy was typically taught within a
human capital framework. Human capital theory argued that both governments and
individuals made decisions about education based on expected economic and human
(individual and social) returns (Becker, 1964). The economic returns from education
spending were seldom evaluated, but studies that did so raised doubts about prevailing
policy (e.g., Hansen & Weisbrod, 1967). The federal government published reports rec-
ommending that states use manpower needs to guide decisions about which types of
colleges and programs to build and support (Halstead, 1974). During the same period,

4 • Introduction
international studies of higher education systems typically used human capital frame-
works (e.g., Kerr, 1978). However, by the early 1970s market logic had begun to have a
substantial influence on education policy.
The Newman Commission (1971), a study group for the U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare (HEW), recommended portable grants as a means of equalizing
opportunity and stimulating innovation, and soon a panel of economists made simi-
lar recommendations (Committee on Economic Development, 1973). Research by the
National Commission on the Financing of Postsecondary Education (1973) confirmed
that student aid had a more substantial influence on enrollment than direct institutional
funding. These early studies influenced the general acceptance of market approaches to
higher education funding at the federal level, a strategy that was rationalized in argu-
ments about equal opportunity (Gladieux & Wolanin, 1976). The Pell grant program,
introduced as Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOGs) in 1972, adapted the
human capital arguments to claim that portable, need-based aid could equalize edu-
cational access, and it is now the largest federally sponsored market-based policy for
postsecondary opportunity.2
The grant-based system of need-based aid lasted for only a short period. In higher
education, research showing that individuals benefit economically from education (e.g.,
Leslie & Brinkman, 1988) has been used to argue for loans rather than grants as the pri-
mary means of providing student aid (Bennett, 1986, 1987). Arguments for educational
vouchers in K–12 education had been made in the 1960s (M. Freidman, 1962), but it
took several decades for these arguments to take hold. Both public and private vouchers
were tried in the 1990s, but research on their impact was ambiguous, as was the research
on charter schools (e.g., Witte, 2000). In K–12 education, market adaption occurred
through development of charter schools to compete with public systems, but vouch-
ers never gained sufficient evidence-informed political support. Parents who can afford
to do so vote with their feet and choose to live in communities with high-performing
schools. These patterns accelerated in the second half of the 20th century, particularly in
response to federal and state desegregation efforts.
When economists assess and evaluate market policies in higher education, they fre-
quently assume that equal opportunity exists in K–12 education (Lleras, 2004); if this
assumption were not made, it would be extremely difficult for them to estimate the
impact of market-based reforms in college aid, even when randomized experiments were
used. Yet, economists have also uncovered some of the problems with the application of
market theory in education. Early econometric studies of the impact of Pell grants found
that constraints on academic preparation in high school limited college choices for new
enrollees in community colleges and proprietary schools (Manksi & Wise, 1983). Anal-
yses of the impact of costs, even causal analyses, are biased in ways that cannot easily be
corrected without considering differentials in prior preparation. Instead of considering
market barriers, much of the education research community blames schools and stu-
dents for failures.
There have been only a few actual experiments studying vouchers and other mar-
ket mechanisms. Findings indicate that these models have not reduced inequalities in
access to quality education. Research using experiments with random assignment has
shown repeatedly that state and local attempts to equalize educational opportunities
have mostly failed: school quality and access to the best schools remain unequal, even
when there are modest gains in parents’ perceived satisfaction (Metcalf & Paul, 2006;

Introduction • 5
Witte, 1998, 2000). Thus, the association between state policies and inequality in edu-
cation markets merits closer study, not because we should do away with markets, but
rather so we can find better ways to reduce inequalities given the prevalence of market
mechanisms in education.
Markets are not only part of the problem with inequality, they can also be part of the
solution if the appropriate mechanisms—and necessary funding—are put into place to
promote greater fairness.
States infrequently consider the role of their market-oriented policies in contributing
to or undermining equal opportunity in education; indeed, the linkages between market
forces and fairness are poorly understood in state governments. For nearly a century,
K–12 education was compulsory and appropriately considered a basic right; higher edu-
cation was generally available and heavily subsidized by the public. The general subsidies
to public universities in the first half of the 20th century mostly benefited middle- and
upper-income families, who had greater access (Hansen & Weisbord, 1969). Contempo-
rary market models evolved as a result of shifts in political ideologies and funding con-
straints without strong empirical evidence to support new policies and without effective
evaluation strategies to assess the impact of the policies. Yet, there was brief period of
relative equality across racial/ethnic groups in the opportunity to enroll in college, as
historic inequalities in college access were largely remedied by federal court decisions
calling for desegregation, and the implementation of Pell grants in the 1970s (St. John,
2003).3 Despite that brief period of success in terms of access, there has never been equal-
ity across racial/ethnic groups in rates of degree attainment.
By the late 1980s, the federal government had shifted its focus from equalizing oppor-
tunity in preparation and college opportunity to emphasizing improvement in edu-
cational outcomes and equal treatment for all students (Finn, 1990a), a strategy that
continues. During the same period, the federal government shifted aid strategies from
emphasizing need-based grants to relying primarily on loans (Hearn & Holdsworth,
2004). Although the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) included
new federal spending on education, most of it was short-term stimulus funding, rather
than a long-term reinvestment, used to reward states that adopted the range of federal
policy priorities for education. Subsequent budget deals have gutted much of the new
investment in education that had been included in the stimulus. Thus, it is up to the
states to figure out how to equalize educational preparation under the new market con-
ditions. Most states have constitutions that emphasize equal opportunity, yet they have
failed to adapt their new market approaches to increase fairness, so greater inequalities
have emerged.
The Eroding Dream
When Martin Luther King Jr. originally made his “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963,
the federal courts were actively considering cases on school desegregation. The federal
government was nearing the starting point of programs promoting equal educational
opportunity in K–12 and higher education, the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (ESEA) and the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA). At the time, states
were responsible for funding both K–12 and higher education, and there had been some
court cases requiring states to equalize funding for higher education. ESEA Title I pro-
vided supplemental funding for compensatory education for low-income students, and
HEA Title IV funded national need-based grant and loan programs. These policies set

6 • Introduction
the United States on a trajectory toward improving equity in education, at least for a
brief period.4
There are two principles of educational opportunity that most citizens of the United
States would agree are important for all: access to a quality K–12 education, what we
call the implied promise of fairness in education for all, and equal opportunity to achieve
a college education.5 States have an obligation to provide a basic education to all, a com-
mitment that is necessary because of the requirement for mandatory schooling. If the
implied promise is broken for some students because of the failure of the state to provide
an adequate basic education, then these early inequalities require attention and adjust-
ment by public colleges and universities if higher education is to play its role in promot-
ing equal education opportunity. In other words, to the extent that colleges are public
institutions, they are an extension of their states and have the obligation to promote
fairness.6
In addition, it is incumbent on government to balance the promise of fair opportunity
to prepare and equal opportunity to enroll in higher education, once given such prepa-
ration, with a distribution of tax dollars through means that ensure cross-generational
uplift.7 Failure to provide taxpayer support would lead to a highly elite system of educa-
tion, with little opportunity for uplift across generations.
The ways governments choose to structure and finance education has changed
over time. In the mid-1900s, public education was subsidized by states, but access was
unequal. After first tackling the problem of segregation in K–12 education after Brown
v. Board of Education (1954), the federal government focused on expanding opportunity
for K–12 education and equalizing opportunity to enroll in higher education, providing
supplemental programs and funding through the ESEA and the HEA. Both conditions—
the promise of quality K–12 schools and equal opportunity for higher education—were
largely achieved for a brief period in the 1970s (St. John, 2003). Compensatory educa-
tion, delivered through the ESEA, created some fairness in preparing for higher educa-
tion; federal student aid programs based on need equalized opportunities for college
enrollment. The helping hand of the federal government aided fairness in K–12 educa-
tion and equality in college access in the 1960s and 1970s, but the underlying framework
of federal education policy shifted to a quasi-market model that did not have this same
emphasis on equalizing opportunity, a change in policy that we consider in Part I.
The election of President Ronald Reagan ushered in a new era in education policy.
Although Reagan was aligned with a neoconservative anti-tax, anti-entitlement philos-
ophy (Drury, 1997), his presidency has been widely recognized as the turning point in
educational policy in the shift to neoliberalism (e.g., Harvey, 2005). Careful study of
presidential speeches (Posselt, 2009) shows that the roots of these “new” visions were
established earlier: first by President Richard Nixon, who promoted markets with the
introduction of Pell grants; and then by President Jimmy Carter, who tried to cut the
costs of government aid and shifted Pell from a low-income program to one giving all
students access to grants and loans by removing the income cap—a change that had an
almost immediate impact on the expansion of inequality. So, although the neoliberal era
ushered in by Reagan may have accelerated the change in trajectory, the underlying ideas
were already established in the policy and ideologies of the Democratic and Republican
presidents who preceded him.
The ideological shifts in American culture and politics are important to the study
of higher education policy because of their influence on public finance, government

Introduction • 7
regulation, and curriculum. Neoliberalism is appropriately characterized as valuing free-
dom of choice over equal rights (Harvey, 2005), whereas neoconservatism is ideologically
opposed to using tax dollars to provide support for need-based entitlements (Drury,
1997). However, general entitlements for all (e.g., vouchers) remain a public policy pri-
ority, but this method could not equalize opportunity without supplemental funding for
low-income families because of their financial need. Without an even hand of govern-
ment to ensure equity, unfettered, privatized markets are especially detrimental to equal
opportunity in education or health.
In contrast, liberalism values equal opportunity, which predisposes proponents toward
need-based aid and other programs that equalize opportunity for education, health
care, and so forth. The national trajectory shifted from a sustained period of movement
toward liberal social programs from the Great Depression through the 1970s to the neo-
liberal period that emerged full scale in the 1980s. Neoconservative arguments about
great books and the humanities (e.g., Bloom, 1987) had received substantial attention
and added to the critique of higher education (Drury, 1997).
Much as A Nation at Risk (U.S. Department of Education, 1983) critiqued liberal educa-
tion reforms and started a trajectory toward central control of curriculum and standards
(Ravitch, 2010), the critiques of liberal higher education financial aid policies levied by Sec-
retary of Education William Bennett and his leadership team, suggesting that universities
raise tuition to increase revenues for loans (Bennett, 1986, 1987; Carnes, 1987; Finn, 1988a,
1988b), were made during a period when federal aid was shifting from an emphasis on
need-based Pell grants to student loans (Hearn & Holdsworth, 2004; St. John, 1994a, 2003).
Since the early 1980s there has been a troubling reliance on the market model, with
inadequate federal investment in need-based grants and an overemphasis on loans for
low- and middle-income students. In this volume, we explore how the global transition—
the internationalization of labor and international competition among universities (St.
John, 2013)—coincide with a new set of conditions in higher education and encourage
readers to reflect on the course of public policy in higher education.
We summarize the shifts in political ideologies and their manifestations in Table 1.1.
We conclude that during the global period there has been a break in the implicit social
contract framed by human capital theory, which guided higher education finance for
Table 1.1 Changes in Political Ideologies Influencing Higher Education
Period Political
Ideologies
Values Higher Education
Progressive century Conservative • Economic development
• Low taxes
• Classical education
• Science and technology, discovery
promoting economic growth
Liberal
Neoconservative
• Social progress
• Cross-generation uplift
• Education for justice and social good
• Equal opportunity
Global period • Cut social programs • STEM pipeline
• Merit aid
• Corporatization of science
• Reduce taxes
Neoliberal • Markets and efficiency
• Universal human rights
• Fill gaps in STEM pipeline
• Equalize preparation requirements

8 • Introduction
nearly a half-century (Rawls, 1971) from the end of the Great Depression through the
end of the Cold War. Rather than being perceived as an investment, with returns to soci-
ety in the form of educated workers who “pay back” society in taxes on income gains and
through economic gains in science, spending on higher education has been aligned with
narrower rationales related to the advancement and commercialization of science (Pow-
ers & St. John, 2017; Priest & St. John, 2006; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). In this new age,
it has been much more difficult for advocates of equal opportunity to build support for
need-based student aid as a means of equalizing higher education opportunity.
States’ Responses to the Federal Market Model
In Part I we examine the general pattern of how states have responded to the market
model of federal student aid, the policy trends raising educational standards for grad-
uation, and the privatization of public colleges that have corresponded with unequal
representation and a growing racial and economic gap in completion rates in 4-year
colleges. However, the correspondence between the emergence of market policies based
on federal loans and expanding privatization of public colleges after 1980 are not the
sole cause of increased inequality because states are the primary source of support for
higher education; but this federal market creates the policy context in which states and
institutions adapt their financial policies. A few states have been exceptions to the general
pattern of growing inequality, illustrating the potential for comprehensive strategies to
deliver on the promise of equal opportunity. The roles of state policies on student finan-
cial aid and high school reform both merit attention when considering issues related to
equal opportunity.
The shift in who pays the cost of attending a public college from taxpayers to stu-
dents and their families contributed to inequalities in preparation, access, and college
success in most states. In many cases, this shift is the consequence of market-oriented
policies that are either poorly structured or fail to address longer-term implications. For
example, only a few states have a history of linking funding for state need-based grants
to tuition charges. Under the best of circumstances, these awards lose their purchasing
power simply because tuition and fees rise, and grants do not. Unfortunately, there has
been a tendency to cut all higher education budgets at the same time, which simultane-
ously leads to increased tuition and decreased grants—meaning that the shifting burden
of cost to parents and students is accelerated. The correspondence between trends in
two indicators during the 1990s and early 2000s (St. John, 2006; St. John, Williams, &
Moronski, 2010)—the fall college continuation rate for spring high school graduates,
and the ratio of public tuition and the average state funding for need-based grants8—
confirms a relationship between state efforts to maintain grant aid and the rate of initial
enrollment. During most of the period, the link was tight: when the percentage of costs
covered by students increased, continuation rates declined, and vice versa. The tight link
between these two indicators broke down in the late 2000s, a development that appears
to be related to the impact of high school reforms.
Changes in state requirements for high school graduation also influence both over-
all opportunity and whether there is equity across income and racial/ethnic groups in
access to different types of opportunities. During the past two decades, all states adopted
new math standards, as advocated by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM) (2000), most raised graduation requirements for math and other subjects, and

Introduction • 9
some implemented exit exams for graduation (Daun-Barnett & St. John, 2012; St. John,
2006). These policies are important relative to higher education because:
• A period of decline in high school graduation rates usually follows implementation
of higher graduation standards (a pattern for which there is evidence, as reviewed
in Chapter 4);
• The extent and speed of recovery in graduation rates after implementation of new
graduation requirements is dependent on the supply of teachers prepared to teach
the advanced subjects required and the attention paid to the organizational and
cultural aspects of school change (a topic that should be further studied);
• The ability of colleges to craft bridge programs and academic support apparatus
builds upon prior preparation of students (a topic of increasing interest to policy
researchers).
Typically, the new standards for curriculum were used in public schools in most states,
but charter schools were exempt in most states. Thus, while charter schools brought
a new type of K–12 market to public education, there were substantial differences in
the academic freedom between district schools and charter schools in most urban dis-
tricts (St. John, Bigelow, Ligina, & Masse, 2015). At the outset of the charter movement,
these new quasi-public schools were exempted from state requirements,9 but increas-
ingly states apply the same graduation requirements and testing to both public and qua-
si-public schools. Federal policy now promotes charter schools and other small schools
as an alternative to public schools, creating parallel systems within most urban school
districts. A few well-funded charters have gained public attention, but, overall, char-
ters do no better at graduating students or improving test scores than do public schools
(Eckes & Rapp, 2006, 2007; Ravitch, 2010).
Charter and public schools now face similar challenges in urban areas. Both types of
schools compete for teachers and students and struggle to upgrade curriculum, although
charters may have an advantage because they can attract money from foundations and
other sources to develop new curriculums, while public schools have a uniform curricu-
lum. However, the problems that underlie implementation of the new standards involve
more than selecting and implementing a curriculum or hiring teachers. The methods
used to teach advanced math and other subjects are not engaging to all students and,
whereas high failure rates were acceptable in the past, increased graduation requirements
force schools to increase achievement.
The Critical Importance of Sustained, Comprehensive Strategies
Reducing inequality in preparation, access, and college success is a complicated process
for states. State policies on school and college funding originally developed prior to and
independent of the early federal efforts to reduce inequality through student financial
aid (HEA Title IV) and compensatory education (ESEA Title I) in 1965. They also devel-
oped independently of one another, which, during periods of declining state revenues,
has the effect of pitting one system in competition against the other for scarce resources.
Over the decades, as the focus of federal policy shifted to a market model, some states
accelerated privatization (i.e., shifting the costs of college from taxpayers to students and
their families). By the 2000s, the federal market model in higher education emphasized

10 • Introduction
loans, and the federal emphasis in K–12 education introduced quasi-public schools that
competed with public schools under different constraints and incentives.10
In the 21st-century policy context, state education and finance policy decisions should
recognize the consequences of each policy on the competing public, private, and pro-
prietary systems of higher education and the public, quasi-public, and private systems
that compete in K–12 education.11 Typically, state policies on higher education, high
schools, and public finance are not well coordinated. This disjointed policy environment
was further undermined by efforts to improve accountability as a mandate for retaining
federal student aid—a systematic approach that forces reporting schemes, alignment of
curriculums, and tests. An unfortunate reality that goes largely unnoticed is that inter-
national benchmarks rating U.S. education were lower in the 2000s (U.S. Department of
Education, 2006) than in 1983 when A Nation at Risk was published (U.S. Department
of Education, 2003). Three decades of accountability schemes implemented within mar-
ket environments have influenced education in unintended ways: the quality of public
schools and the percentage of students graduating from high school declined, as did
college degree completion (Bowen, Chingos, & McPherson, 2009).
In these conditions, states are left to create coordinated approaches that combine aca-
demic and financial strategies in coherent ways to make sure market and accountability
strategies work as intended. But do they? Unfortunately, they usually do not. We conclude
that a comprehensive, coherent approach that coordinates diverse strategies in ways that
allow schools and colleges to compete for students is the most workable approach in the
policy context of the early 21st century. We reach these conclusions based on research
(e.g., St. John, Hu, & Fisher, 2011; St. John & Musoba, 2010) coupled with the analysis of
state models in Part II.
States selected for case studies represent models worth careful study. However, this
is a convenience sample in the sense that we worked with policymakers in many of
these states on analyses reported in the case studies. Only the Michigan and Califor-
nia cases were developed independent of collaboration with state officials; they were
chosen because they include distinct features and policy priorities that merit attention
in other states. California provides an example of the low-tuition, high-grant model;
Minnesota provides an example of the high-tuition/high-grant model; and Michigan
provides an example of high tuition and low grants that in many ways embodies the
neoliberal ideology (Chapter 10). North Carolina provides a case that runs counter to
recent trends: increased public investment in colleges and their students in spite of the
difficult economic conditions of the early 2000s (Chapter 11). In combination, these
cases provide a view of a diverse range of state strategies, allowing comparisons of dif-
ferent approaches. As part of each case, we consider how different types of institutions
have adapted as state policies changed in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the time period
studied. We provide evidence that will help readers assess how well campus and state
strategies work along three dimensions—improving quality (academic outcomes),
maintaining diversity, and reducing achievement gaps (a measure of equity within sys-
tems)—while also meeting demand at a fair cost for taxpayers and families who pay
full costs. It has been extremely difficult for states to maintain integrated models and
a workable approach, given the economic volatility in states combined with shifts in
federal policies and funding.
There was evidence in several state cases of policymakers using research as feedback
to modify, adapt, and refine government policy and campus strategies. In some states,

Introduction • 11
research played a role in shaping and sustaining strategy: California has been a subject
of study for decades (Hansen & Weisbrod, 1967, 1969; Smelser & Almond, 1974), Min-
nesota became a national model in the 1980s (Hearn & Anderson, 1989, 1995; Hearn &
Longanecker, 1985), and Indiana has more recently emerged as a model (St. John, Hu, &
Weber, 2000, 2001; St. John & Musoba, 2010). However, all of the states are susceptible to
the vagaries of the tenuous national and global economies.
The fact is that campuses and states are challenged by new conditions that require
alternative strategies for developing P–16 education policy. In Part III we discuss ways in
which policymakers, campus administrators, and faculty can work together to improve
quality, diversity, and financial stewardship. For the past few decades, government agen-
cies have been responding to taxpayer concerns about the costs of the public sector of
the economy. At the same time, public, private, and proprietary colleges continue to be
dedicated to raising and spending money (H. R. Bowen, 1980; Hossler, 2004).
POLITICAL SHIFTS AND POLICY ANALYSIS
As the evolution of policies and policy rationales outlined above illustrates, most policy-
makers and researchers treat their beliefs about the goals of public policy as though they
were true, seldom subjecting them to research evidence and open debate. However, there
are vastly differing political views on the role of education, the value of providing access
to it, and whether the government should be responsible for funding education, and, if
so, how to go about it. Part II uses case studies to focus on the political aspects of policy
decisions in states as an integral part of state policy frameworks. Next, we introduce our
approach to discussing political views or frames of policy decisions. We consider the role
of both political ideologies and analytic approaches, two key components of framing and
rationalizing policy decisions.
Political Shifts
The classic liberal and conservative arguments are placed in a historical perspective and
used to describe the current ideological clash about education and educational finance
and the post progressive stance used in the book. Our aim is to provide the facts in ways
that are open to interpretation without taking a stance on how strategies will link to
outcomes. Instead, we examine assumptions about the benefits of markets and recog-
nize the importance of improving quality and economic productivity as well as equity.
Although economic theories of human capital and markets had a substantial influence
on education policy in the 20th century, these arguments were not the basis for early
public investments in education.
Placing Recent Trends in Their Historical Contexts
Much of the current debate about education policy is framed within a clash between con-
servative and liberal values. For example, many conservatives believe that markets pro-
vide opportunities for innovation and improve excellence for all (e.g., Finn, Manno, &
Vanourek, 2000), whereas many liberals argue that the role of government should be
to equalize opportunity (e.g., Oakes, 1985), the ideology that shaped the ESEA and the
HEA in the 1960s and 1970s. When these frames are used, the debates about educational
systems, funding, and policies are often framed as either/or dialectics. Although we agree
that there are radically different values among those on the political right and left, we also

12 • Introduction
recognize the need to elevate political discourse above ideological clashes. It may help to
take a step back and consider contemporary education policy in a historical context.
The history of education, as typically portrayed, is framed within the values of the
Enlightenment. It is important to recognize that the emergence of the modern nation
state, and later our democratic form of national government, grew out of the accumu-
lated wealth of nations and the shift in theological logic about human rights (Fogel,
2000; Polyani, 2001; Taylor, 2007). The creation of schools and colleges in the early col-
onies set the trajectory of education in the United States before public education as we
now know it emerged (Reese, 2005; Thelin, 2004a). Higher education institutions were
founded as the nation moved westward during the colonial period and afterward. Most
states and territories had high schools, academies, and colleges of various types, often
with little distinction among them (Thelin, 2004a). Professional education in business
and medicine took place in private proprietary schools, as public and private colleges
focused mostly on the liberal arts. Most colleges were aligned with faith traditions, and
their presidents were usually members of the clergy.
Faith traditions were central to curriculum in early American schools and colleges
during the colonial period and the nation’s first century (Marsden, 1994; Taylor, 2007).
The faith-based orientation of colleges began to change in the late 1800s, but progress
toward this secular notion of education and liberal arts occurred gradually after the cre-
ation of public education (Reese, 2005). Although some states had created public univer-
sities before the Civil War, the Land Grant Act of 1865 set up a framework for all states to
create public universities (Jencks & Riesman, 1968; Kerr, 1963).
A general state policy framework, or ethos, emerged that public universities should
be accessible to all who qualified. Recently, in a historical discussion of the public role in
higher education appended to Crossing the Finish Line (Bowen, Chingos, & McPherson,
2009, p. 240), Eugene Tobin argued:
America’s public flagship universities were created to meet the social and economic
development of the states that chartered them, to serve as the great equalizer and
preserver of an open, upwardly mobile society to provide “an uncommon educa-
tion for the common man.” Any resident, regardless of socioeconomic status, who
fulfilled a standard set of academic requirements, would, in theory, be admitted
to one of the state’s public higher education institutions. In principle, the flagship
university of the late 19th and early 20th century was an institution that served
everybody, but in an era when few people completed high school (and many who
did pursued non-college proprietary curriculum), the notion of the “people’s uni-
versity” was more of a symbol than a reality.
This description of early American public universities captures the ideology of social
and economic development, the core values of the progressive trajectory in American
education during the century ending in the 1980s (St. John & Parsons, 2004), after which
the core value became economic rather than social development. The Wisconsin Idea12
and the growth in the belief that the boundaries of the University of Wisconsin were the
boundaries of the state embodied this progressive expectation for higher education at
the turn of the 20th century (Wisconsin Higher Education Business Roundtable, n.d.).
Public high school systems developed after public universities. The public school
movement, a process that converted Protestant schools into public schools, began in

Introduction • 13
earnest in the 1880s (Reese, 2005). High schools were slow to develop, and when they
became generally available they followed a comprehensive pattern, providing vocational,
liberal arts, and college preparatory education. The evolution of the comprehensive high
school was largely a consequence of two developments through the early part of the 20th
century. First, by 1918, every state in the nation had passed laws both curtailing child
labor and providing compulsory education, with states responsible for providing that
education (Cook, 1912; Deutsch, 1917; Resnick & Resnick, 1985). Second, historians of
the comprehensive high school (Hammack, 2004; Krug, 1964; Wraga, 1994) typically
trace its origins back to the Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education (Commission
on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, 1918), because it delineated very clearly
a new vision for a broader, more accessible, and practical/vocational curriculum for the
masses. The Catholic schools, which resisted the Protestant-centric curriculum of early
“public” schools, developed college preparatory high schools (Gleason, 1995). The cur-
rent struggles to transform public high schools into college preparatory schools involves
changing deeply embedded cultures, not only of schools but also of the working-class
communities in which many are situated.
These efforts come in a new historical period. The emergence of the global period is
every bit as world changing as the early period of nation building. After the end of the
Cold War, corporations rapidly internationalized, creating a radically different context
for public policy (T. L. Friedman, 2005; Stiglitz, 2002). In higher education, the move-
ment toward market systems and loans is global although not universal (Henry, Lingard,
Rizvi, & Taylor, 2001).
Clashing Political Ideologies
The new global ideology is neoliberal, valuing individual rights over the social good
(Harvey, 2005), which is why markets are valued so consistently across the political spec-
trum. In the progressive period in U.S. education, from the end of the Civil War to the
end of the Cold War, conservatives argued for education as an instrument for economic
development, while liberals argued for social class uplift (St. John & Parsons, 2004). The
older economic arguments about human capital supported both social and economic
views of investing in education. The new market period is different, not only because of
the focus on individual economic returns, but also because of the interpretation of rights
and freedom to choose that underlie the newer market strategies. For more than three
decades, arguments about individual choice and economic development have prevailed
in debates about education, rather than arguments based on the common good and
equal educational opportunity.
It has been a complicated period for the old liberal goal of social uplift of more people
into the middle class, for which education was seen as the vehicle. Attempts to expand
funding for public education and student aid have often not been successful at the fed-
eral level, whether national debt was growing, as in the 1980s and 2000s, or shrinking,
as it did in the 1990s. The challenge has been how to merge the philosophies of mar-
kets and individual freedoms with attempts to expand the middle class. It is possible
that new economic arguments about the workforce (Commission on the Skills of the
American Workforce, 2007), markets, and educational opportunity will merge into a
new progressive rationale for reinvestment in education. There is some evidence of this,
especially in southern states. The Obama administration argued for reinvestment in
education and substantially increased funding for education in the American Recovery

14 • Introduction
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Billions of dollars were distributed to states for
higher education and to fund innovations in urban and rural high school education. Yet
questions remain about whether the reinvestment in education can be sustained, given
growing government debt in the United States.
Post-Progressive Stance
We take a post-progressive stance in this book.13 We recognize that inequality within
nations and in access to education have grown during this period of globalization, and
financial and environmental conditions make it difficult to sustain investments designed
to reduce inequality in education. Environmental decline is also a serious global problem.
The neoliberal emphasis on individual rights, which favors consumption and the con-
centration of wealth, makes it difficult for any government to sustain commitments to
equal education or environmental improvement.
In the post-progressive period, we argue, improvement in quality and equity can be
achieved through state policy priorities, but it is first necessary to discern how individual
policies relate to outcomes and then to refine policies as part of an iterative process of
change. If we assume that any specific set of policies will result in equalizing opportu-
nities, then we will miss the opportunity to craft new strategies that may work better. In
short, we advocate thorough, systematic experimentation in education policy, where the
states are laboratories and the education research community provides scientific evi-
dence to influence the reformulation of integrated policy strategies. The case studies pre-
sented in Part II illustrate that a combination of policies will work in different ways over
time in different settings, depending on circumstances. Those who value equal opportu-
nity in higher education and study financial aid tend to argue for need-based student aid
(Bowen et al., 2009; McPherson & Schapiro, 1991, 1998; St. John, 2003).
We encourage readers to step back from the debates about specific strategies and focus
on how combinations of strategies already in place within states are working. It is diffi-
cult to hold together a political coalition to support a policy approach, but there are ways
to do it. For example, Indiana increased its investment in need-based aid in the 1990s
and 2000s but included merit features in the grant program, an approach that had the
support of conservatives in the state (Indiana Case: Part II). The state provided higher
basic grants to students with honors and college preparatory diplomas than to students
with regular diplomas. From an old liberal vantage, the compromise was troubling
because it penalized students who were tracked out of these courses, generally including
higher numbers of low-income, underrepresented students. Yet the strategy also pro-
vided incentives for students to take advantage of advanced preparatory courses, which
all high schools were required to offer.
We encourage readers to ponder the problem of building and holding together a con-
sensus, consider evidence about the relationships between policies and outcomes, and
reach informed judgments about political positions and policy arguments. We recog-
nize and encourage advocacy within education systems, but we also encourage openness
about strategies and outcomes. The evidence from state cases in Part II illustrates that
states adopt very different strategies for the improvement of education and for higher
education finance, in part as a result of the political histories of their states. Further, to
maximize the impact of funding and education resources, universities must craft strat-
egies with knowledge of the ways in which state policy actually works rather than what
worked in a campus in another state with a different policy context.

Introduction • 15
Policy Analysis and Interpretation
This book seeks to bring the ideological debates about human rights and economic
development into full view of policymakers, analysts, and researchers who examine
policy issues in higher education in the United States. The role of ideology is vitally
important in efforts to understanding inequality and the privatization of colleges; more-
over, most of the policy literature in this field is largely silent about the role of recent
changes in political ideology.14 In undertaking this task, we take a post-progressive stance
that recognizes the fact that the global trajectory complicates policy analysis in educa-
tion (St. John, 2009a). The “post” aspect of our stance is based on our understanding
of the lack of a shared social contract in the global period, while the “progressive” ori-
entation represents the value we place on educational uplift and social progress. We do
not assume readers share these values but instead encourage reflection on values and
strategies. Although the tools of policy analysis are still extremely useful, the contexts
for interpreting policy studies and political actions are different than they were when
progressive values of social and economic development prevailed. We use the term the
progressive century to refer to the sustained period from the post-Civil War period and
the creation of land-grant universities through the end of the Cold War, during which
public investment in higher education was thought to be linked to social progress and
economic development.
Policy Analysis
There are many methods of policy analysis, but we focus on how the analysis of problems
and cases through two traditions, economic and political, can inform government and
institutional decisions in the postmodern period. Both traditions influenced the frame-
works developed in this volume.
Human capital theory provided a general framework for cost-benefit and policy anal-
ysis in education. Using the logic of human capital,15 it is possible to estimate the eco-
nomic value of spending on different types of programs (Levin & McEwan, 2000). This
logic turns the analysis of policy options into a set of choices that are rationally ana-
lyzed and discussed. This method can include consideration of constraints, incentives,
direct and indirect effects, and so forth, all necessary components of crafting both govern-
ment and institutional policy decisions. This type of research is rare in policy research on
higher education (e.g., Paulsen, 2001a, 2001b; St. John & Masten, 1990) because it relies
on a form of grand economic theory that is seldom used in higher education studies.
Another tradition used in business education and policy analysis involves case stud-
ies.16 Commonly held assumptions and frames in a field of study can be used to analyze
cases and project decisions. Bolman and Deal (1991/1996) illustrate the value of try-
ing out different framing assumptions in analyzing cases and policies. We extend this
approach by proposing new frames that have emerged from practices in case study states.
Frames provide ways of noting what assumptions are taken for granted in planning and
budgeting. Yet as conditions change in states and institutions, it is necessary for policy
and strategy to change to keep pace.
Critical–Empirical Approach
The critical–empirical approach to policy analysis involves deconstructing claims or
assumptions, examining evidence in relation to those claims, and reconstructing under-
standing (St. John, 2003, 2007, 2009a). When it is applied to the analysis of policy

16 • Introduction
decisions in states and institutions, this approach can facilitate discourse among analysts
and advocates holding different ideologies if there is a willingness to suspend arguments
and discuss trends, evidence, and research. With open exchange, it is possible to build
new coalitions, a process that has worked well in discussions among Republican and
Democrat policy analysts in Indiana regarding school finance issues (Theobald, 2003),
early education research (St. John, Loescher, & Bardzell, 2003), and higher education
finance (St. John, 2003).17
Our approach to policy analysis and research involves examining multiple, and often
competing, hypotheses about and rationales for policy decisions, replacing the single-
hypothesis approach to policy research and analysis. Research is frequently used to build
rationales for reform (St. John & Parsons, 2004); the expectation is that critical–empirical
research will discern and test competing claims about a problem and use evidence to
rethink and refine the rationales developed to formulate and implement policy.
CONCLUSION
Critical analysis of policy rationales and related evidence is used as the review method in
the analytic chapters in this book. In Part I, we provide a broad view of the impact of the
ideological shift on policy in higher education (Chapter 2), present our approach to the
book (Chapter 3), and examine multiple rationales related to preparation (Chapter 4),
access (Chapter 5), and academic success (Chapter 6). These chapters review rationales
for policy changes, examine trends in federal policy and related outcomes, and review
studies that focused on testing hypotheses. They were constructed to enable readers to
make their own judgments about policies and outcomes in these three areas. Part II pres-
ents case studies of states that have developed policies related to rationales for reforming
higher education. These chapters encourage readers to ponder the strengths and limita-
tions of the approaches used in each state and how they might inform strategies in other
states. The states were chosen because of the range of ideologies and policies evident
and because of access to information based on our past experiences as researchers. In
Part III, we focus on how administrators and researchers can work to inform education
reform within states and institutions of higher education. Chapter 13 raises questions
about the framing assumptions in use in policy decisions and research. Chapter 14 turns
to the problems of the social good and how to promote uplift in a period of constrained
taxpayer support for colleges and their students.
Rather than arguing for a single approach or “best practice,” we examine the ways
in which policymakers, administrators, and professors have endeavored to inform and
influence change within existing systems of higher education and how they have advo-
cated for changes in educational systems. Our purpose is to inform judgment and prac-
tice rather than to argue for any particular policy or set of policies. In the long run,
informed judgment by experts and policymakers is needed to shape the trajectory of
higher education in states and to guide institutions through these troubling times.
The first reflective exercise (Text Box 1.1) encourages readers to examine and dis-
cuss state and campus context for policy decisions and provides discussion questions
for comparing state and institutional contexts. Readers can develop their own cases as
they work through the book, using the reflective questions to guide case research. The
discussion questions encourage readers to think about the implications of the content in
the chapter and related texts to inform their understanding of the role of public policy
in higher education.

Introduction • 17
Text Box 1.1 Questions on Policy Contexts in
States and Campuses
1. How do K–12 and higher education, along with financial policies, vary across
states?
2. How well aligned are states’ policies in K–16 education with federal policies on
preparation, access, and college success?
3. How do you think alignment between K–12 and higher education policies var-
ies across states?
4. What are the issues facing your state and campus with respect to:
a. Preparation (examples: outreach to schools and students, marketing and
information dissemination, admissions standards)
b. Access/Enrollment (examples: student aid, bridge programs, partnerships
with high schools)
c. Academic Success (examples: academic support, options for students who
want to change majors, continuity of student aid packages, state funding of
degree completion)
5. How have policies on these issues been framed in the past?
a. Are the policies coherent and linked in logical ways?
b. Has a guiding philosophy or strategic plan been used to develop these poli-
cies or did they just evolve?
6. How has research been used to inform the creation or reformulation of policies
in your state?

References
AACRAO. (2004). Integrated postsecondary education data system (IPEDS) Student unit Records (UR).
Retrieved from www.aacrao.org/federal_relations/IPEDS_UR.pdf
ACT. (2000). High school sophomores need help planning upper level courses, college and careers. News
release. Retrieved from www.act.org/news/releases/2000/060500.html
Adams v. Califano, 430 F. Supp. ll8 (D.C.D.C. 1977).
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelors degree
attainment. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Adelman, C. (2006, February). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through
college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. (2002). Empty promises: The myth of college access in
America. Washington, DC: Author.
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. (2010). The rising price of inequality. Report prepared for
Congress. Washington, DC: Author.
Alderete, K. (2006). GEAR UP evaluation project. Austin, TX: National Council for Community and Education
Partnerships.
Allen, W. R. , Epps, E. G. , & Haniff, N. Z. (1991). College in Black and White: African American Students in
Predominantly White and Historically Black Public Universities. New York: SUNY Press.
Allensworth, E. , Nomi, T. , Montgomery, N. , & Lee, V. E. (2009). College preparatory curriculum for all:
Academic consequences of requiring algebra and English I for ninth graders in Chicago. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 367391.
Altbach, P. G. (2010). Preface. In G. Goastellec (Ed.), Understanding in equalities in, through, and by higher
education (pp. viiix). Boston: Sense Publishers.
Alvis, M. J. , & Willie, C. V. (1987). Controlled choice assignments: A new more effective approach to school
desegregation. The Urban Review, 19(1), 6788.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2010). Nursing Shortage Fact Sheet. Retrieved from
Washington, DC: www.aacn.nche.edu/media/pdf/NrsgShortageFS.pdf
American Civil Liberties Union. (2000, June 27). Civil rights groups sue over race bias in Michigan Merit
Scholarship Program. ACLU.org. Retrieved from www.aclu.org/racial-justice/civil-rights-groups-sue-over-race-
bias-michigan-merit-scholarship-program
American Diploma Project. (2004, December 10). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts.
Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc., The Education Trust, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved from
www.achieve.org/ReadyorNot
American Indian Higher Education Consortium. (2007). American Indian measures of success (AIMS) fact
book2007 tribal colleges and universities report. Retrieved from www.aihec.org/resources/AIMS.cfm
Anderson, P. L. , & Salle, C. M. (2007). Preliminary report: The economic benefits of the university research
corridor. Retrieved May 21, 2010, from www.urcmich.org/economic/URC_PreliminaryReport_May24.pdf
292 Archibald, D. A. (2004, October). School choice, magnet schools, and the liberation model: An empirical
study. Sociology of Education, (October), 283310.
Around the Capitol. (2011). Student financial aid: EligibilityCalifornia DREAM Act of 2011. Retrieved from
www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_130/20112012/
Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Attewell, P. , Lavin, D. , Domina, T. , & Levey, T. (2006). Passing the torch: Does higher education for the
disadvantaged pay off across the generations? New York: Russell Sage Foundation, American Sociological
Association, Rose Monographs Series.
Austin, J. , Burkhardt, J. , & Jacobs, J. (2004). Background briefing for commission members. Retrieved from
http://cherrycommission.org/docs/Resources/Background%20Briefing%20-%20Austin.pdf
Avery, C. , & Hoxby, C. (2003). Do and should financial aid packages affect students college choices? NBER
Working Paper Series (9482), 70. Retrieved from www.nber.org/papers/w9482
Avery, C. , Hoxby, C. , Jackson, C. , Burek, K. , Poppe, G. , & Raman, M. (2006). Cost should be no barrier: An
evaluation of the first year of Harvards financial aid initiative. NBER Working Paper Series, (12029), 24.
Retrieved from www.nber.org/papers/w12029
Bachman, R. (2011, July 18). UC regents approve 9.6% tuition hike. Santa Barbara Independent.
Bahr, P. R. (2007). Does math remediation work? A comparative analysis of academic attainment among
community college students. Research in Higher Education, 49(4), 420450.
Balderston, F. E. (1974). Managing todays university. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barth, E. , Moene, K. O. , & Willumsen, F. (2014). The Scandinavian modelan interpretation. Journal of Public
Economics, 117, 6072.
Bastedo, M. N. (2009). Convergent institutional logics in public higher education: State policymaking and
governing board activism. Review of Higher Education, 32(2), 209234.
Baum, S. , & Ma, J. (2009). Trends in College Pricing. Retrieved from
https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/CP_2009.pdf
Baum, S. , & Ma, J. (2011). Trends in college pricing 2010. New York: College Board.
Baum, S. , Ma, J. , Pender, M. , & Welch, M. (2016). Trends in student aid 2016. New York: The College Board.
Baum, S. , & Steele, P. (2010). Who borrows most? Bachelors degree recipients with high levels of debt.
Trends in Higher Education Series. Retrieved from http://advocacy.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/Trends-
Who-Borrows-Most-Brief.pdf

Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis of a causal model of attrition. Research in Higher
Education, 12, 155187.
Bean, J. P. (1983). The application of a model of turnover in work organizations to the student attrition process.
Review of Higher Education, 6, 127148.
Bean, J. P. (1990). Why students leave: Insights from research. In D. Hossler & J. P. Bean (Eds.), The strategic
management of college enrollments (pp. 147169). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Becker, G. S. (1975). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special consideration of
education (2nd ed.). New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Becker, W. E. (2004). Omitted variables and sample selection in studies of college-going decisions. In E. P. St.
John (Ed.), Public policy and college access: Investigating the federal and state roles in equalizing
postsecondary opportunity. Readings on Equal Education (Vol. 19, pp. 6586). New York: AMS Press.
Bell, A. D. , Rowan-Kenyon, H. T. , & Perna, L. W. (2009). College knowledge of 9th and 11th grade students:
Variation by school and state context. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 663685.
Bennett, W. J. (1984). To Reclaim a Legacy: Text of report on humanities in education. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 29(14), 1621.
Bennett, W. J. (1986). Text of Secretary Bennetts speech on college costs and US student aid. The Chronicle
of Higher Education, 33(13), 20.
Bennett, W. J. (1987, February 18). Our greedy colleges. New York Times, I 31.
Berg, D. J. , & Hoenack, S. A. (1987). The concept of cost-related tuition and its implications at the University of
Minnesota. The Journal of Higher Education, 58, 276305.
Berkner, L. , & Chavez, L. (1997). Access to postsecondary education for the 1992 high school graduates.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Berkner, L. , He, S. , & Cataldi, E. M. (2002). Descriptive summary of 199596 beginning post-secondary
students: Six years later. National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2003151. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003151.pdf
Berkner, L. , Horn, L. , & Clune, M. (2000). Descriptive summary of 199596 beginning post-secondary students:
Three years later, with an essay on students who started at less-than-4-year institutions. National Center for
Educational Statistics, NCES 2000154. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000154
293 Bettinger, E. P. (2004). How financial aid affects persistence. In C. Hoxby (Ed.), College choices: The
economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 207238). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Bettinger, E. P. , & Long, B. T. (2005). Addressing the needs of underprepared students in higher education:
Does college remediation work? University of Wisconsin Press. Journal of Human Resources, 44(3), 736771.
Bettinger, E. P. , Long, B. T. , Oreopoulous, P. , & Sanbonmatsu, L. (2012). The role of information and
simplification in college decisions: Results from the H&R Block FAFSA experiment. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 127(3), 12051242.
Bifulco, R. , Cobb, C. D. , & Bell, C. (2009). Can interdistrict choice boost student achievement? The case of
Connecticuts interdistrict magnet school program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 323345.
Bishop, J. H. (2002, June). A prospective policy evaluation of the Michigan merit award program. Prepared for
the Kennedy School of Government conference: Taking Account of Accountability: Assessing Politics and
Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bishop, J. H. (2004). Merit scholarships for the many: Doubling the number of high school students who work
hard in high school. In R. Kazis , J. Vargas , & N. Hoffman (Eds.), Double the numbers: Increasing
postsecondary credentials for underrepresented youth (pp. 87100). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Black, S. E. , & Sufi, A. (2002). Who goes to college? Differential enrollment by race and family background.
NBER Working Paper Series (9310), 43. Retrieved from www.nber.org/papers/w9310
Blackmer, A. R. , Bragdon, H. W. , Bundy, M. , & Harbison, E. H. (1952). General education in school and
college: A committee report by members of the faculty at Andover, Exeter, Lawrenceville, Harvard, Princeton,
and Yale. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Bloom, H. S. , Thompson, S. L. , & Unterman, R. (June 2010). Executive summary. Transforming the high
school experience: How New York Citys new small schools are boosting student achievement and graduation
rates. New York: MDRC.
Bolman, L. G. , & Deal, T. E. (1991/1996). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boulus, M. , & Daun-Barnett, N. (2008, October 11). Community college baccalaureate: A solution in search of
a problem. Retrieved from http://pcsum.org/Portals/0/docs/Community%20College%20Baccalaureate-
%20A%20Solution%20in%20Search%20of%20a%20Problem-FINAL.pdf
Bound, J. , & Turner, S. (2002). Going to war and going to college: Did World War II and the G.I. Bill increase
educational attainment for returning veterans? University of Chicago Press. Journal of Labor Economics, 20(4),
784815.
Bowen, H. R. (1978). Investment in learning: The individual and social value of American higher education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, H. R. (1980). The costs of higher education: How much do colleges and universities spend per student
and how much should they spend? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, W. G. , & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in
college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bowen, W. G. , Chingos, M. , & McPherson, M. S. (2009). Crossing the finish line: Completing college at
Americas public universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bowman, P. J. , & St. John, E. P. (2011). Diversity, merit, and higher education: Toward a comprehensive
agenda for the twenty-first century. Readings on Equal Education, Vol. 25. New York: AMS Press.
Boyd, D. , Lankford, H. , Loeb, S. , Rockoff, J. , & Wyckoff, J. (2008). The narrowing gap in New York City
teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high-poverty schools. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 24(4), 793818.
Bozick, R. , & Ingels, S. J. (2008). Mathematics course taking and achievement at the end of high school:
Evidence from the education longitudinal study of 2002 (ELS: 2002). National Center for Educational Statistics,
NCES 2008319. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: NCES.
Bracco, K. R. (1997). State structures in governance of higher education. San Jose, CA: California Higher
Education Policy Center.
Bransberger, P. , & Michelau, D. K. (2016). Knocking at the college door: Projections of high school graduates.
Retrieved from Boulder, CO.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57f269e19de4bb8a69b470ae/t/583f0ab6440243e9ace54c41/148052652
4984/Knocking2016FINALFORWEB.pdf
Braxton, J. M. (Ed.). (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University
Press.
Braxton, J. M. , McKinney, J. , & Reynolds, P. (2006). Cataloguing institutional efforts to understand and reduce
college student departure. In E. P. St. John (Ed.), New directions in institutional research (Vol. 130). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Braybrooke, D. , & Lindblom, C. E. (1963). A strategy of decision: Policy evaluation as a social process. New
York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Breneman, D. W. , Finn, C. E. , & Nelson, S. (Eds.). (1978). Public policy and private higher education.
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
294 Brodie, J. (1996). New state forms, new political spaces. In R. Boyer & D. Drache (Eds.), States against
markets: The limits of globalization (pp. 383398). London: Routledge.
Brown, M. C. II , Butler, J. , & Donahoo, S. (2004). Desegregation and diversity: Finding new ways to meet the
challenge. In E. P. St. John & M. D. Parsons (Eds.), Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and
new rationales (pp. 108123). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Brown, S. (2016, January 15). For a slot at a 4-year university, some North Carolina students could soon need
a community college degree. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 4.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483. (1954).
Brown v. Board of Education, 349 US 294. (1955).
Burke, J. C. (1994, May/June). The proof is in the performance. Trusteeship, 25, 29.
Burke, J. C. (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market
demands. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cabrera, A. F. , Nora, A. , & Castaeda, M. B. (1992). The role of finances in the persistence process: A
structural model. Research in Higher Education, 33(5), 571594.
Cabrera, A. F. , Nora, A. , & Castaeda, M. B. (1993). College persistence: Structural equations modeling test of
an integrated model of student retention. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(2), 123139.
Cahalan, M. W. , Ingels, S. J. , Burns, L. J. , Planty, M. , Daniel, B. , & Owings, J. A. (2006). United States high
school sophomores: A twenty-two-year comparison, 19802002. National Center for Educational Statistics,
NCES 2008320. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
Cahalan, M. W. , Perna, L. W. , Yamashita, M. , Ruiz, R. , & Khadish, F. (2016). Indicators of higher education
equity in the United States: 2016 historical trend report. Retrieved from
www.pellinstitute.org/downloads/publications-
Indicators_of_Higher_Education_Equity_in_the_US_2016_Historical_Trend_Report.pdf
Calcagno, J. C. , & Long, B. T. (2008). The impact of postsecondary remediation using a regression
discontinuity approach: Addressing endogenous sorting and noncompliance. NBER Working Paper Series,
(14194), 40. Retrieved from www.nber.org/papers/w14194
California Community Colleges Chancellors Office. (2005). Addendum: Impact of student fee increase and
budget changes on enrollment in California Community Colleges. Analysis of fee increase from $18 to $26 per
unit. Retrieved from www.cccco.edu/Portals/4/TRIS/research/reports/impact_study_18_26.pdf
California Student Aid Commission. (2011). State budget reductions result in Changes to Cal Grant Program
eligibility and cuts to Cal Grant awards. Retrieved from
www.csac.ca.gov/NEWS/050511_ExecDirectorMsg_statebudgetreductionsincalgrants.pdf
Callan, P. M. (2002, February). Coping with recession: Public policy, economic downturns and higher
education. National Center Report 022. Washington, DC: National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education.
Callan, P. M. , & Finney, J. E. (Eds.). (1997). Public and private financing of higher education: Shaping public
policy for the future. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education/Oryx Press.
Carey, K. (2008, April). Graduation rate watch: Making minority success a priority. Education Sector Reports.
Washington, DC: Education Sector. Retrieved from
www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/Graduation_Rate_Watch.pdf
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1973). Priorities for action: Final report. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. (1980). Three thousand futures: The next twenty years
for higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Carnes, B. M. (1987). The campus cost explosion: College tuitions are unnecessarily high. Policy Review, 40,
6871.

Carnevale, A. P. (2007). Confessions of an education fundamentalist: Why grade 12 is not the right end point
for anyone. In N. Hoffman , J. Vargas , A. Venezia & M. S. Miller (Eds.), Minding the gap: Why integrating high
school with college makes sense and how to do it (pp. 1526). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Carnevale, A. P. , Jayasundera, T. , & Cheah, B. (2012). The college advantage: Weathering the economic
storm. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/1fj5qqnkvyp4mnf2mush
Carnevale, A. P. , Stohl, J. , & Melton, M. (2011). Whats it worth? The economic value of college majors.
Report prepared for the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
http://cew.georgetown.edu/whatsitworth/
Carnoy, M. (2001). Do school vouchers improve student performance? Washington, DC: Economic Policy
Institute.
Carnoy, M. , & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis.
Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305331.
Ceja, M. (2006). Understanding the role of parents and siblings as information sources in the college choice
process of Chicana students. Journal of College Student Development, 47(1), 87104.
Chaney, B. (2010). National evaluation of student support services: Examination of student outcomes after six
years. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Chaney, B. , Burgdorf, K. , & Atash, N. (1997). Influencing achievement through high school graduation
requirements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 229244.
Chankseliani, M. (2013). Higher Education Access in Post-Soviet Georgia: Overcoming a Legacy of Corruption.
In H.-D. Meyer , E. P. St. John , M. Chankseliani , & L. Uribe (Eds.), Fairness in access to higher education in
295a global perspective: Reconciling excellence, efficiency, and justice, pp. 171188. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publications.
Chapa, J. , & Horn, C. L. (2007). Is anything race neutral? Comparing race-neutral admissions policies at the
University of Texas and the University of California. In G. Orfield , P. Marin , S. M. Flores & L. Garces (Eds.),
Charting the future of college affirmative action: Legal victories, continuing attacks, and new research (pp.
157172). Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project, UCLA School of Education. Retrieved from
www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/affirmativeaction/charting_aa.php
Chea, T. (2009, August). Budget cuts devastate California higher education. Associated Press. Retrieved from
www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gjzoH4l6imyUZtTNQZkn2Kg4hsCAD99STNJ00
Cheit, E. F. (1971). The new depression in higher education. New York: Mc-Graw Hill.
Cheit, E. F. (1974). The new depression in higher educationtwo years later. New York: McGraw Hill.
Chen, R. , & St. John, E. P. (2011). State financial policies and student persistence at first institutions: A
national study. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(5), 629660.
Chen, W. , St. John, E. P. , Li, X. , & Hannon, C. (in press). Actionable research for education equity and social
justice: Higher education reform in China and beyond. New York: Routledge.
Chen, X. (2007). Part-Time Undergraduates in Postsecondary Education: 2003-04 (NCES 2007-165).
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED497213.pdf
Chen, X. , & Carroll, C. D. (2005). First-generation students in postsecondary education: A look at their college
transcripts. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005171.pdf
Choy, S. P. (2002a). Access & persistence: Findings from 10 years of longitudinal research on students.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Choy, S. P. (2002b). Findings from the condition of education, 2002: Non-traditional undergraduates.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Chubb, J. E. , & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and Americas schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institution.
Ciupak, Y. Z. (2016). On the Nexus of Local and Global: Educational Choice in China during the Era of
Globalization. Issues in Globalization and Social Justice: Comparative Studies in International Higher
Education. AMS Monograph Series Volume 3. New York: AMS Press, Inc.
Clements, M. M. , & Powers, J. B. (2017). Privatizing the intellectual commons: Ethical practice and the social
contract for science in the United States. In J. B. Powers & E. P. St. John (Eds.), Higher education,
commercialization, and university-business relationships in comparative context. Issues in globalization and
social justice: Comparative studies in international higher education. AMS Monograph Series (Vol. 2). New
York: AMS Press.
Clotfelter, C. T. , Ladd, H. F. , & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). How and why do teacher credentials matter for student
achievement? NBER Working Paper Series (12828). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Clune, W. H. , & White, P. A. (1992). School-based management: Institutional variation, implementation, and
issues for further research. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Center for
Policy Research in Education.
Cohen, R. , & Zelnik, R. E. (Eds.) (2002). The free speech movement: Reflections on Berkeley in the 1960s.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1965). Education and political development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
College Board (2016a). Trends in higher education: Trends in college pricing 2016. Retrieved from
https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing
College Board (2016b). Trends in higher education: Trends in student aid 2016. Retrieved from
https://trends.collegeboard.org/student-aid
College Foundation of North Carolina. (2009). An evaluation of North Carolinas college planning web portal.
CFNC.org. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina General Administration.
Commission on the Future of Higher Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of US higher
education. Report to the Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Washington, DC: Department of
Education.

Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. (1918). The cardinal principles of secondary
education. Washington, DC: Author.
Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. (2007). Tough choices, tough times: The report of the
new commission on skills of the American workforce. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the
Economy.
Committee on Economic Development. (1973). The management and financing of colleges. New York: Author.
Conant, J. B. (1959). The American high school today. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Conklin, K. D. , & Curran, B. K. (2005). Action agenda for improving Americas high schools. Sponsored by
Achieve, Inc., and the National Governors Association. Retrieved from
www.achieve.org/achieve.nsf/ActionAgenda_Overview?OpenForm
Conley, D. T. (2005). College knowledge: What it really takes for students to succeed and what we can do to
get them ready (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
296 Connerly, W. (2000). A vision for America, beyond race: Intellectual ammunition. Retrieved from
www.heartland. org/ia/novdec00/connerly.htm
Conrad, C. F. , Brier, E. M. , & Braxton, J. M. (1997). Factors contributing to the matriculation of White students
in public HBCUs. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 3(1), 3762.
Conrad, C. F. , & Leslie, L. L. (1994, November). Plan for remedy: State of Alabama. Mimeo.
Conrad, C. F. , & Shrode, P. E. (1990). The long road: Desegregating higher education. NEA Higher Education
Journal, 6(1), 3545.
Conrad, C. F. , & Weerts, D. J. (2004). Federal involvement in higher education desegregation: An unfinished
agenda. In E. P. St. John & M. D. Parsons (Eds.), Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and
new rationales (pp. 6074). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Constantine, J. M. , Seftor, N. S. , Martin, E. S. , Silva, T. , & Myers, D. (2006). A study of the effect of the
Talent Search program on secondary and postsecondary outcomes in Florida, Indiana, and Texas: Final report
from phase II of the national evaluation. Report prepared by Mathematics Policy Research for the U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies
Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Cook, W. A. (1912). A brief survey of the development of compulsory education in the United States. The
Elementary School Teacher, 12(7), 331335.
Cornwell, C. M. , & Mustard, D. (2002). Race and the effects of Georgias HOPE scholarship. In D. E. Heller &
P. Marin (Eds.), Who should we help? The negative social consequences of merit scholarships (pp. 5772).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Key state policies on PK-12 education, 2008. Washington, DC:
Author.
Cullen, J. B. , Jacob, B. A. , & Levitt, S. (2006). The effect of school choice on participants: Evidence from
Randomized lotteries. Econometrica, 74(5), 11911230.
Cunningham, A. , Erisman, W. , & Looney, S. (2008). Higher education in Michigan: Overcoming challenges to
expand access. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Cuomo, A. , & Megna, R. L. (2011). New York at a crossroads: A transformation plan for a new New York.
Retrieved from http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget1112/fy1112littlebook/BriefingBook.pdf
Dalton, B. , Ingels, S. J. , Downing, J. , & Bozick, R. (2007). Advanced mathematics and science course taking
in the spring high school senior classes of 1982, 1992, and 2004. National Center for Educational Statistics,
NCES Statistical Analysis Report 07312. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education.
Dalton, R. , & St. John, E. P. (2016). College for every student: An educators guide for building college and
career skills. New York: Eye on Education/Taylor & Francis.
Data Quality Campaign. (2011). Leveraging federal funding for longitudinal data systemsa roadmap for states.
Retrieved from www.dataqualitycampaign.org/build/arra_programs/
Daun-Barnett, N. (2008a). Collaborating for efficiency and quality: A report from the Presidents council, State
Universities of Michigan. Retrieved from http://pcsum.org/Portals/0/docs/Collaborating-Efficiency-Quality-
2008.pdf
Daun-Barnett, N. (2008b). Preparation and access: A multi-level analysis of state policy influences on the
academic antecedents to college enrollment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
Daun-Barnett, N. (2011). The Kalamazoo promise: A new twist on tuition guarantees. Journal of Student
Financial Aid, 41(1), 2837.
Daun-Barnett, N. (2012). Access to college: A reconsideration of the national education longitudinal study
(NELS). Educational Policy. doi: 10.1177/0895904811429290
Daun-Barnett, N. , & Holohan-Moyer, I. (2013). Local College Access Strategies: Examining the Equitable
Distribution of Postsecondary Access in Michigan. In G. Sunderman (Ed.), Charting Reform, Achieving Equity in
a Diverse Nation (pp. 251272). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Daun-Barnett, N. , & St. John, E. P. (2012). Constrained curriculum in high schools: The changing math
standards and student achievement, high school graduation and college continuation. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 20(5). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/907
De Nies, J. (2010). President Obama outlines goal to improve college graduation rate in US: US ranks 12th
globally, trailing Canada and Russia. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/WN/president-barack-obama-
outlines-college-education-goal-university/story?id=11359759
Deil-Amen, R. , & Tevis, T. L. (2010). Circumscribed agency: The relevance of standardized college entrance
exams for low SES high school students. Review of Higher Education, 33(2), 141175.

Delaney, J. , & Doyle, W. (2007). The role of higher education in state budgets. In K. Shaw & D. E. Heller (Ed.),
State post-secondary education research: New methods to inform policy and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
297 DesJardins, S. , Ahlburg, D. A. , & McCall, B. P. (2006). An integrated model of application, admission,
enrollment, and financial aid. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 381429.
DesJardins, S. , & McCall, B. P. (2010). The impact of Washington State achievers scholarship on student
outcomes. Paper Presented at the 2009 Association for the Study of Higher Education Conference, Vancouver,
BC.
Deutsch, A. (1917). A phase of compulsory education. The School Review, 25(2), 7387.
Dougherty, K. J. , Jones, S. M. , Lahr, H. , Natow, R. S. , Pheatt, L. , & Reddy, V. (2016). Performance funding
for higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Doyle, W. R. (2010). Does merit aid crowd out need-based aid? Research in Higher Education, 51(5), 397415.
Doyle, W. R. , & Doyle, W. R. (2006). Adoption of merit-based student grant programs: An event history
analysis. Educational Evaluation And Policy Analysis, 28(3), 259285. doi:10.3102/01623737028003259
Dresch, S. P. (1975). A critique of planning models for postsecondary education: Current feasibility, potential
relevance, and a prospectus for future research. The Journal of Higher Education, 46, 246286.
Drury, S. B. (1997). Leo Strauss and the American right. New York: St. Martins Press.
Duderstadt, J. J. , & Womack, F. W. (2003). Beyond the crossroads: The future of the public university in
America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dynarski, S. (1999, November). Does aid matter? Measuring the effect of student aid on college attendance
and completion. NBER Working Paper Series (7422). Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Dynarksi, S. (2000). Hope for whom? Financial aid for the middle class and its impact on college attendance.
National Tax Journal, 53(3), 629662.
Dynarski, S. (2002a). Race, income, and the impact of merit aid. In D. E. Heller & P. Marin (Eds.), Who should
we help? The negative social consequences of merit aid scholarships. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights
Project, Harvard University.
Dynarski, S. (2002b, May). The behavioral and distributional consequences of aid for college. American
Economic Review, 92, 279285.
Dynarski, S. (2002c, December). The consequences of merit aid. National Bureau of Economic Research
Working Paper 9400. Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Dynarski, S. (2003). Does aid matter? Measuring the effect of student aid on college attendance and
completion. American Economic Review, 93(1), 279288.
Dynarski, S. (2004). The new merit aid. In C. Hoxby (Ed.), College choices: The economics of where to go,
when to go and how to pay for it (pp. 63100). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eckes, S. , & Rapp, K. (2006). Charter school research: Trends and implications. In E. P. St. John (Ed.), Public
policy and equal educational opportunity: School reforms, postsecondary encouragement, and state policies on
postsecondary education. Readings on Equal Education (Vol. 21, pp. 336). New York: AMS Press.
Eckes, S. , & Rapp, K. (2007). Are charter schools using recruitment strategies to increase student body
diversity? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Education Commission of the States. (2000). State funding for community colleges: A 50-state survey. Denver,
CO: Author.
Etzkowitz, H. (2017). Whither the (entrepreneurial) university? In J. Powers & E. P. St. John (Eds.), Higher
education, commercialization, and university-business relationships in comparative context: Vol. 1. Issues in
globalization and social justice: Comparative studies in international higher education. AMS Monograph Series
(Vol. 2). New York: AMS Press.
Evenbeck, S. , Seabrook, P. A. , St. John, E. P. , & Murphy, S. (2004). Twenty-first century scholars: Indianas
program of incentives for college going. In R. Kazi , J. Vargas & N. Hoffman (Eds.), Double the numbers:
Increasing post-secondary credential for under-represented youth (pp. 169174). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Evens, J. (1970). The view from the state of California. Change, 3(5).
Fain, P. (2013, January 22). Evolution or mission creep? Inside higher ed. Retrieved from
www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/01/22/michigan-lets-community-colleges-issue-four-year-degrees-amid-
controversy
Fain, P. (2017, April 28). Purdue acquires Kaplan University to create new public, online university under
Purdue brand. Inside Higher Ed, p. 5.
Farmer, J. (2004). Financing instructional technology and distance education: Reviewing costs and outcomes.
In E. P. St. John & M. D. Parsons (Eds.), Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and new
rationales (pp. 186212). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Feder, J. (2010). Unauthorized alien students, higher education, and in-state tuition rates: A legal analysis.
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Felder, P. F. (2012). Prior socialization in academic capital formation: HBCU origins and their impact on
doctoral student success. In R. Winkle-Wagner , P. Bowman & E. P. St. John (Eds.), Expanding post-
secondary 298opportunity for under-represented students: Theory and practice of academic capital formation.
Readings on Equal Education (Vol. 26, pp. 151178). New York: AMS Press, Inc.
Ferreri, E. , & Price, J. (2011, April 3). NC shifting more higher education costs to students. Charlotte observer,
p. 2.
Finn, C. E., Jr . (1978). Scholars, dollars, and bureaucrats: Federal policy toward higher education.
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.
Finn, C. E., Jr . (1988a). Judgment time for higher education in the court of public opinion. Change, 20(4), 3538.

Finn, C. E., Jr . (1988b). Prepared statement and attachments. Hearing before the Subcommittee on
Postsecondary Education, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 100th Congress, 1st
Session, No. 10047, September 25. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Finn, C. E., Jr . (1990a). The biggest reform of all. Phi-Delta-Kappan, 71(8), 584592.
Finn, C. E., Jr . (1990b). Why we need choice. In W. L. Boyd & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Choice in education:
Potential and problems (pp. 320). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Finn, C. E., Jr ., Manno, B. V. , & Ravitch, D. (2001, December). Education 2001: Getting the job done.
Washington, DC: Authors.
Finn, C. E., Jr ., Manno, B. , & Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter schools in action: Renewing public education.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
First, P. F. (1992). Educational policy for school administrators. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Fiske, E. B. (2010). The Carolina covenant. In R. D. Kahlenberg (Ed.), Rewarding strivers: Helping low-income
students succeed in college (pp. 1770). New York: Century Foundation Press.
Fitzgerald, B. F. , & Kane, T. J. (2003, October). Lowering barriers to college access in California and the
nation: Opportunities for more effective state and federal student aid policies. Paper presented at the
conference of the Harvard Civil Rights Project and the University of California, Sacramento, CA.
Fitzgerald, B. K. (2004). Federal financial aid and college access. In E. P. St. John (Ed.), Public policy and
college access: Investigating the federal and state roles in equalizing post-secondary opportunity. Readings on
Equal Education (Vol. 19, pp. 128). New York: AMS Press.
Fitzgibbons, R. H. (1968). The academic senate of the University of California. Berkeley, CA: University of
California, Presidents Office.
Fitzsimmons, E. G. (2011, February 17). Michigan governor proposes budget cuts and lower taxes. New York
Times. Retrieved from http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/michigan-governor-proposes-big-
budgetcuts-lower-taxes/
Flores, S. M. (2010). State DREAM Acts: The effect of in-state resident tuition policies and undocumented
Latino students. Review of Higher Education, 33(2), 239283.
Fogel, R. W. (2000). The fourth great awakening and the future of egalitarianism. Chicago: Chicago University
Press.
Fossey, R. E. , & Bateman, M. (Eds.). (1998). Condemning students to debt: College loans and public policy.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th ed.). ( Myra Bergman Ramos , Trans.) (Original work
published in 1970). New York, NY: Continuum.
Friedman, B. M. (2005). The moral consequence of economic growth. New York: Vintage.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus,
and Giroux.
Gndara, P. (2002). Meeting common goals: Linking K-12 and college interventions. In W. G. Tierney & L. S.
Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities for all students. Albany, NY: SUNY
Press.
Gndara, P. (2005). Fragile futures: Risk and vulnerability among Latino high achievers. Policy Brief. Princeton,
NJ: Education Testing Service.
Gndara, P. , Orfield, G. , & Horn, C. (Eds.). (2006). Expanding opportunity in higher education: Leveraging
promise. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Gehring, M. (2016). Performance-Based Funding in Minnesota Higher Education. Retrieved from St. Paul, MN:
www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/perffundhe.pdf
Ginder, S. A. , Kelly-Reid, J. E. , and Mann, F. B. (2017). Graduation Rates for Selected Cohorts, 200813;
Outcome Measures for Cohort Year 2008; Student Financial Aid, Academic Year 201516; and Admissions in
Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2016: First Look (Preliminary Data) (NCES 2017-150). U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
Girmay, F. , & St. John, E. P. (in press). College choice in global markets: Remixing migration, education, and
human rights, In W. Chen , E. P. St. John , X. Li & C. Hannon (in press). Actionable research for education
equity and social justice: Higher education reform in China and beyond. New York: Routledge.
Gladieux, L. E. , & Wolanin, T. (1976). Congress and the colleges: The national politics of higher education.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
299 Gleason, P. (1995). Contending with modernity: Catholic higher education in the twentieth century. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Glenny, L. A. (1971). Coordinating higher education for the 70s: Multi-campus and statewide guidelines for
practice. Berkeley, CA: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education.
Glenny, L. A. (1973). Trends in state funding in higher education: A preliminary report. Denver: Higher
Education Services Division, Education Commission of the States.
Glenny, L. A. , Bowen, F. M. , Meisinger, R. J. , Morgan, A. W. , Purves, R. A. , & Schmidtline, F. A. (1975).
State budgeting in higher education: Data digest. Berkeley, CA: Center for Research and Development in
Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley.
Gonzalez, J. (2011, February 27). Governors face challenges in improving college-completion rates: Lack of
money, turnover in ranks are obstacles for ambitious goals. Chronicle of higher education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.texterity.com/chronicle/20110304a?pg=22#pg22
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 (2003).

Grubb, W. N. (1996a). Learning to work: The case for reintegrating job training and education. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Grubb, W. N. (1996b). Working in the middle: Strengthening education and training for the mid-skilled labor
force. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 306. (2003).
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vols. 1). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2. Lifeworld and system: A critique of
functionalist reasoning ( T. McCarthy , Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1991). The new conservatism: Cultural criticism and the historians debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Halstead, D. K. (1974). Statewide planning in higher education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Hammack, F. M. (2004). The comprehensive high school today. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hannon, C. , Faas, D. , & OSullivan, K. (in press) Widening the educational capabilities of socio-economically
disadvantaged students through a model of social and cultural capital development. British Education Research
Journal.
Hannon, C. , & OSullivan, K. (2016). The Irish case. In R. Dalton & E. P. St. John (Eds.), College for every
student: An educators guide for building college and career skills. New York: Eye on Education/Taylor &
Francis.
Hannon, C. , & OSullivan, K. (in press). Widening the educational capabilities of socio-economically
disadvantaged students through a model of social and cultural capital development. British Journal of
Educational Research.
Hansen, W. L. (1983). The impact of student financial aid on access. In J. Froomkin (Ed.), The crisis in higher
education (pp. 8496). New York: Academy of Political Science.
Hansen, W. L. , & Weisbrod, B. A. (1967). An income net worth approach to measuring economic welfare.
Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin.
Hansen, W. L. , & Weisbrod, B. A. (1969). Benefits, costs, and finance of public higher education. Chicago:
Markham.
Harnisch, T. L. (2011). Performance-based funding: A re-emerging strategy in public higher education funding.
A Higher Education Policy Brief. American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from
www.congressweb.com/aascu/docfiles/Performance_Funding_AASCU_june2011.pdf
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hearn, J. C. (1993). The paradox of growth in federal aid for college students: 19651990. In J. C. Smart (Ed.),
Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 9, pp. 439460). New York: Agathon Press.
Hearn, J. C. (2001a). Access to postsecondary education: Financing equity in an evolving context. In M. B.
Paulsen & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The finance of higher education: Theory, research, policy, and practice (pp.
439460). New York: Agathon Press.
Hearn, J. C. (2001b). Epilogue to the paradox of growth in federal aid for college students: 19651990. In M. B.
Paulsen & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The finance of higher education: Theory, research, policy, and practice (pp.
316320). New York: Agathon Press.
Hearn, J. C. , & Anderson, M. S. (1989). Integrating post-secondary education financing policies: The
Minnesota model. In R. H. Fenske (Ed.), Studying the impact of student aid on institutions (pp. 5574). New
Directions for Higher Education, No. 62. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hearn, J. C. , & Anderson, M. S. (1995). The Minnesota finance experiment. In E. P. St. John (Ed.), Rethinking
tuition and student aid strategies (pp. 526). New Directions for Higher Education, No. 89. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Hearn, J. C. , & Holdsworth, J. M. (2004). Federal student aid: The shift from grants to loans. In E. P. St. John &
M. D. Parsons (Eds.), Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and new rationales (pp. 4059).
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
300 Hearn, J. C. , & Longanecker, D. (1985). Enrollment effects of alternative post-secondary pricing policies.
The Journal of Higher Education, 56(5), 485508.
Hearn, J. C. , Sand, H. , & Urahn, S. (1985). Targeted subsidization of post-secondary enrollment in Minnesota:
A policy evaluation. Minneapolis: Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota.
Heckman, J. J. , & LaFontaine, P. A. (2007). The American high school graduation rate: Trends and levels.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Heller, D. E. (1997). Student price response in higher education: An update to Leslie and Brinkman. The
Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 624659.
Heller, D. E. (1999). The effects of tuition and state financial aid on public college enrollment. Review of Higher
Education, 23(1), 6589.
Heller, D. E. (2001). Trends in the affordability of public colleges and universities: The contradiction of
increasing prices and increasing enrollment. In D. E. Heller (Ed.), The states and public higher education policy:
Affordability, access, and accountability (pp. 1138). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Heller, D. E. (2004a). NCES research on college participation: A critical analysis. In E. P. St. John (Ed.), Public
policy and college access: Investigating the federal and state roles in equalizing postsecondary opportunity.
Readings on Equal Education (Vol. 19, pp. 2964). New York: AMS Press.
Heller, D. E. (2004b). State merit scholarship programs. In E. P. St. John (Ed.), Public policy and college
access: Investigating the federal and state roles in equalizing post-secondary opportunity. Readings on Equal
Education (Vol. 19, pp. 99108). New York: AMS Press.

Heller, D. E. , & Marin, P. (Eds.). (2002). Who should we help? The negative social consequences of merit
scholarships. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.
Heller, D. E. , & Marin, P. (Eds.). (2004). State merit scholarship programs and racial inequality. Cambridge,
MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.
Heller, D. E. , & Shapiro, D. T. (2001). Legal challenges to high stakes testing: A case of disparate impact in
Michigan? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA.
Hendrick, R. Z. , Hightower, W. H. , & Gregory, D. E. (2006). State funding limitations and community college
open door policy: Conflicting priorities? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30, 627640.
Henry, M. , Lingard, B. , Rizvi, F. , & Taylor, S. (2001). The OECD, globalization and education policy.
Amsterdam: Pergamon Press.
Higher Education Opportunity Act, Pub. L. No. 110-315, 122 Stat. 3078 Stat. 432 (2008).
Hillman, N. W. , Tandberg, D. , Gross, J. P. K. (2014, September). Market-Based Higher Education: Does
Colorados Voucher Model Improve Higher Education Access and Efficiency? Research in Higher Education,
55(6).
Hoffer, T. B. (1997). High school graduation requirements: Effects on dropping out and student achievement.
Teachers College Record, 98(4), 584607.
Hoffman, N. , Vargas, J. , Venezia, A. , & Miller, M. S. (Eds.). (2007). Minding the gap: Why integrating high
school with college makes sense and how to do it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Horn, L. , Cataldi, E. F. , & Sikora, A. (2005). Waiting to attend college: Undergraduates who delay their post-
secondary enrollment. National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2005152. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, NCES.
Horn, L. , & Kojaku, L. (2001). High school academic curriculum and the persistence path through college:
Persistence and transfer behavior of undergraduates 3 years after entering 4-year institutions. National Center
for Educational Statistics, NCES 2001163. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, NCES.
Horn, L. , Nevill, S. , & Griffith, J. (2006). Profile of undergraduates in US post-secondary education institutions,
200304: With a special analysis of community college students. Statistical Analysis Report. National Center for
Educational Statistics, NCES 2006184. Washington, DC: NCES.
Horn, L. , & Nuez, A. (2000). Mapping the road to college: First-generation students math track, planning
strategies, and context of support. National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2000153.Washington, DC:
NCES.
Horn, L. , & Peter, K. (2003). What colleges contribute: Institutional aid to full-time undergraduates attending 4-
year colleges and universities. National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2003157. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.
Hossler, D. (1984). Enrollment management: An integrated approach. New York: College Entrance
Examination Board.
Hossler, D. (1987). Creating effective enrollment management systems. New York: College Entrance
Examination Board.
Hossler, D. (2004). Refinancing public universities: Student enrollments, incentive-based budgeting and
incremental revenue. In E. P. St. John & M. D. Parsons (Eds.), Public funding of higher education: Changing
contexts and new rationales (pp. 145163). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
301 Hossler, D. (2006). Student and families as revenue: The impact on institutional behaviors. In D. M. Priest
& E. P. St. John (Eds.), Privatization in public universities: Implications for the public trust (pp. 109128).
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Hossler, D. , Bean, J. P. , & Associates. (1990). The strategic management of college enrollment. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hossler, D. , Gross, J. P. K. , & Ziskin, M. (Eds.). (2009). Enhancing institutional and state initiatives to increase
student success: Studies of the Indiana project on academic success. Readings on Equal Education (Vol. 24).
New York: AMS Press.
Hossler, D. , Lund, J. P. , Ramin-Gyurnek, J. , Westfall, S. , & Irish, S. (1997). State funding for higher
education: The Sisyphean task. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(2), 160190.
Hossler, D. , & Schmit, J. (1995). The Indiana post-secondary-encouragement experiment. In E. P. St. John
(Ed.), Rethinking tuition and student aid strategies (pp. 2739). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hossler, D. , Schmit, J. , & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic, and educational factors
influence the decisions students make. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hossler, D. , Ziskin, M. , & Gross, J. (2009). Getting serious about institutional performance in student retention:
Research-based lessons on effective policies and practice. About Campus, 13(6), 211.
Hoxby, C. (2002). School choice and school productivity (or could school choice be a tide that lifts all boats?).
NBER Working Paper Series, 8873, 75. Retrieved from www.nber.org/papers/w8873
Hoxby, C. (2004). Introduction. In C. Hoxby (Ed.), College choices: The economics of where to go, when to go,
and how to pay for it (pp. 112). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hoxby, C. M. , & Avery, C. (2012). The missing one-offs: The hidden supply of high-achieving, low income
students. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 18586. Available online at
www.nber.org/papers/w18586
Inside Higher Education. (2011). Obama signs short-term spending bill that kills LEAP Program. Retrieved from
www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/03/03/qt#252846
Institute of Education Sciences. (2011). Statewide longitudinal data systems grant program. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/
Institute of Governmental Studies. (2011, September 5). Tax and expenditure limitation in California:
Proposition 13 & Proposition 4. UC Berkeley. Retrieved from
http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/research/quickhelp/policy/finance/tax_spend_limits_2003.html

Ishitani, T. T. (2003). A longitudinal approach to assessing attrition behavior among first-generation students:
Time-varying effects of precollege characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 433449.
Jackson, G. A. (1978). Financial aid and student enrollment. Journal of Higher Education, 49(6), 548574.
Jackson, G. A. , & Weathersby, G. B. (1975). Individual demand for higher education: A review and analysis of
recent empirical studies. The Journal of Higher Education, 46(6), 623652.
Jacob, B. A. , & Lefgren, L. (2007, October). The effect of grade retention on high school completion. (NBER
Working Paper Series, Vol. October). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Jacob, B. A. , & Lefgren, L. (2009, July). The effect of grade retention on high school completion. American
Economic Association, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(3), 3358.
Jacobs, F. , & Tingley, T. (1977). The evolution of eligibility criteria for title III of the higher education Act of
1965: Appendix A. The development of institutions of higher education: Theory and assessment of impact of
four possible areas of federal intervention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jalava, M. (2013). The Finnish Model of Higher Education Access: Does Egalitarianism Square with
Excellence? In H.-D. Meyer , E. P. St. John , M. Chankseliani & L. Uribe (Eds.), Fairness in Access to Higher
Education in a Global Perspective: Reconciling Excellence, Efficiency, and Justice. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publications.
Jencks, C. , & Riesman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. Chicago: Doubleday.
Jesse, D. (2016, May 29). New Fight for Community Colleges and Four-Year Degrees. Detroit Free Press.
Retrieved from www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/05/29/new-fight-community-colleges-and-4-
year-degrees/85036914/
Johnstone, D. B. (2001). Financing higher education: Who should pay? In P. G. Altbach , R. O. Berdahl & P.
Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (pp. 347369). Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Justia US Law. (2010). Michigan compiled laws chapter 390universities and colleges act 94 of 1999Michigan
merit award scholarship. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://law.justia.com/codes/michigan/2010/chapter-
390/act-94-of-1999/
Kane, T. J. (1995). Rising public college tuition and college entry: How well do public subsidies promote access
to college? Working paper series, No. 5146. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
302 Kane, T. J. (2003). A quasi-experimental estimate of the impact of financial aid on college-going. NBER
Working Paper Series (9703), 65. Retrieved from www.nber.org/papers/w9703
Kane, T. J. (2004). Evaluating the impact of the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant Program. NBER Working Paper
Series (10658), 54. Retrieved from www.nber.org/papers/w10658
Katz, M. B. (2001). The irony of early school reform: Educational innovation in mid-nineteenth century
Massachusetts. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kazis, R. , Vargas, J. , & Hoffman, N. (Eds.). (2004). Double the numbers: Increasing postsecondary
credentials for under-represented youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Kelleher, D. T. (1971). The case of Lloyd Lionel Gaines: The demise of the separate but equal doctrine. The
Journal of Negro History, 56(4), 262271.
Kena, G. , Hussar, W. , McFarland, J. , de Brey, C. , Musu-Gillette, L. , Wang, X. ,  & Barmer, A. (2016). The
Condition of Education 2016. NCES 2016144. National Center for Education Statistics.
Kerr, C. (1963). The uses of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kerr, C. (Ed.). (1978). 12 systems of higher education: 6 decisive issues. New York: International Council for
Educational Development.
Kerr, C. (1991, May). The new race to become Harvard or Berkeley or Stanford. Change, 815.
Kerr, C. (1994). Higher education cannot escape history: Issues for the 21st century. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Kerr, C. (2002). Shock wave II: An introduction to the 21st century. In S. J. Brint (Ed.), The future of the city of
intellect: The changing American university (pp. 119). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kim, D. (2008). The effect of financial aid on students college choice: Differences by racial groups. Research in
Higher Education, 45(1), 4370.
Kipp, S. M. , Price, D. V. , & Wohlford, J. K. (2002). Unequal opportunity: Disparities in college access among
the 50 states. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education, New Agenda Series.
Kirp, D. L. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the bottom line: The marketing of higher education. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Kirst, M. W. (1998). Bridging the remediation gap. Bridge Project, Stanford University. Retrieved from
www.standord.edu/group/bridgeporject/gap/remedgap.pdf
Kirst, M. W. (1999). Babel of standards: Students face a confusing array of tests and assessments. Stanford
University. Retrieved from www.stanford.edu/group/bridgeproject/babel/babel.pdf
Kirst, M. W. (2001). Overcoming the high school senior slump: New education policies. Stanford University.
Retrieved from www.standord.edu/group/bridgeproject/seniorslump/seniorslum.pdf
Kirst, M. W. , & Venezia, A. (Eds.). (2004). From high school to college: Improving opportunities for success in
post-secondary education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Klein, N. (2008). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. New York: Henry Holt.
Kozol, J. (2005). Shame of the nation. New York: Crown Publisher.
Kroth, A. J. (2013). The Effects of College Cost and Financial Aid in Germany: Why are students sensitive to
college costs in a low-cost/high-aid system? In H.-D. Meyer , E. P. St. John , M. Chankseliani , & L. Uribe
(Eds.), Fairness In Access To Higher Education In A Global Perspective: Reconciling Excellence, Efficiency,
And Justice. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publications.
Krug, E. A. (1964). The shaping of the American high school. New York: Harper & Row.

L.A. Now. (2011, November 23). UC Davis chancellor: Police defied my orders by using pepper spray.
Retrieved from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/uc-davis-pepper-spray-chancellor-police-defied-
orders.html
Labaree, D. F. (1997a). How to succeed in school without really learning: The credentials race in American
education. New Haven, Conn.: London: Yale University Press.
Labaree, D. F. (1997b). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American
Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 3981.
Layzell, D. T. , & McKeown, M. P. (1992). State funding formulas for higher education: Trends and issues.
Paper Presented at the Annual ASHE Conference. Minneapolis.
Lazerson, M. (2001). The College Board and American educational history. In M. C. Johanek (Ed.), A faithful
mirror: Reflections on the College board and education in America (pp. xxv, 400). New York: College Board.
Lee, E. C. , & Bowen, F. M. (1971). The multi-campus university: A study of academic governance. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lee, E. C. , & Bowen, F. M. (1975). Managing multi-campus systems: Effective administration in an unsteady
state. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lee, J. B. (2004). Access revisited: A preliminary reanalysis of NELS. In E. P. St. John (Ed.), Public policy and
college access: Investigating the federal and state roles in equalizing post-secondary opportunity. Readings on
Equal Education (Vol. 19, pp. 8796). New York: AMS Press.
Lee, J. B. , & Carroll, C. D. (2001). Undergraduates enrolled with higher sticker prices. National Center for
Educational Statistics, NCES 2001171. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and NCES.
303 Lee, J. B. , Zumeta, W. , & St. John, E. P. (1996). Feasibility of establishing private higher education
charter institutions and issuing tuition vouchers. Prepared for the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee.
Bethesda, MD: JBL Associates.
Lee, J. B. , & St. John, E. P. (1995). Student financial aid and the persistence of recipients at Washington
colleges and universities. Prepared for the Higher Education coordinating Board, State of Washington.
Bethesda, MD: JBL Associates.
Lee, M. , & St. John, E. P. (2012). Academic capital formation among Hmong students: An exploratory study of
the role of ethnic identity in college transitions. In R. Winkle-Wagner , P. J. Bowman & E. P. St John (Eds.),
Expanding post-secondary opportunity for underrepresented students: Theory and practice of academic capital
formation. Readings on Equal Education (Vol. 26, pp. 89116). New York: AMS Press, Inc.
Lee, V. E. , Croninger, R. G. , & Smith, J. B. (1997). Course-taking, equity, and mathematics learning: Testing
the constrained curriculum hypothesis in US secondary schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
19, 99121.
Lee, V. E. , & Ready, D. D. (2007). Schools within schools: Possibilities and pitfalls of high school reform. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Lee, V. E. , & Ready, D. D. (2009, Spring). The US high school curriculum: Three phases of contemporary
research and reform. The Future of Children, 19(1), 135156.
Legislative Analysts Office. (2005). Proposition 98 primer. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from
www.lao.ca.gov/2005/prop_98_primer/prop_98_primer_020805.htm
Leslie, L. L. (1977). Higher education opportunity: A decade of progress. ERIC/AAHE Higher Education
Research Report No. 3. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Leslie, L. L. , & Brinkman, P. (1987). Student price response in higher education: The student demand studies.
The Journal of Higher Education, 58(2), 181204.
Leslie, L. L. , & Brinkman, P. T. (1988). The economic value of higher education. New York: Macmillan.
Leslie, L. L. , Oaxaca, R. L. , & Rhoades, G. (2002). Revenue flux and university behavior. In D. M. Priest , W.
E. Becker , D. Hossler & E. P. St. John (Eds.), Incentive-based budgeting systems in public universities (pp.
5591). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Leslie, L. L. , & Rhodes, G. (1995). Rising administrative costs. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(2),
187212.
Levin, H. M. , & McEwan, P. J. (2000). Cost effectiveness analysis: Methods and applications (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Levin, J. S. , Kater, S. , & Wagoner, R. L. (2006). Community college faculty: At work in the new economy. New
York: Palgrave.
Li, X. (2011). Origin of the organization and governance of a modern university: The university of Michigan in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Ph. D. Dissertation, Higher Education.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 7988.
Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public administration review, 517526.
Lindblom, C. E. , & Cohen, D. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Linsenmeier, D. M. , Rosen, H. S. , & Rouse, C. E. (2002). Financial aid packages and college enrollment
decisions: An econometric study. NBER Working Paper Series (9228), 45. Retrieved from
www.nber.org/papers/w9228
Lleras, M. P. (2004). Investing in human capital: A capital markets approach to student funding. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lombardi, J. V. , & Capaldi, E. D. (1996). Accountability and quality evaluation in higher education. In D. S.
Honeyman , J. L. Wattenbarger & K. C. Westbrook (Eds.), Struggle to survive: Funding higher education in the
next century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Long, B. T. (2004). The impact of federal tax credits for higher education. In C. Hoxby (Ed.), College choices:
The economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 101168). Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.
Lt. Governors Commission on Higher Education and Economic Growth. (2004). Final report of the Lt.
Governors commission on higher education and economic growth. Retrieved from
www.cherrycommission.org/docs/finalReport/CherryReport.pdf
Lumina Foundation. (2008). Indianas twenty-first century scholars program: A statewide story with national
implications, results and reflections. Indianapolis, IN: Author.
Lumina Foundation. (2009). Indianas twenty-first century scholars program: A statewide story with national
implications. Indianapolis, IN: Author. Retrieved from www.umich.edu/~mpas/LuminaReport.pdf
Lumina Foundation for Education. (2016). A stronger nation. Retrieved from
https://twitter.com/LuminaFound?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Lydon, J. , & Morgan, R. (2017). The Bologna process and the Lisbon agenda: Implications for European higher
education. In J. B. Powers & E. P. St. John (Eds.), Higher education, commercialization, and university-
business relationships in comparative context. Issues in globalization and social justice: Comparative studies in
international higher education. AMS Monograph Series (Vol. 2). New York: AMS Press.
304 Ma, J. (2003). Education savings incentives and household saving: Evidence from the 2000 TIAA-CREF
survey of participant finances. NBER Working Paper Series, (9505), 49. Retrieved from
www.nber.org/papers/w9720
Ma, J. , Baum, S. , Pender, M. , & Welch, M. (2016). Trends in College Pricing, 2016. New York: The College
Board.
Malkoff, D. (2017, Feb. 27). Trumps 2018 budget will squeeze civilian science agencies. Science. Retrieved
from www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/trump-s-2018-budget-will-squeeze-civilian-science-agencies
Manset, G. , St. John, E. P. , Hu, S. , & Gordon, D. (2002). Early literacy practices as predictors of reading
related outcomes: Tests scores, test passing rates, retention, and special education referral. Exceptionality, 10,
1128.
Manset, G. , & Washburn, S. (2000). Equity through accountability? Mandating minimum competency exit
examinations for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
15(3), 160167.
Manski, C. F. , & Wise, D. A. (1983). College choice in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Marksjarvis, G. (2010, December 5). Unemployment for college graduates and people over 45 hit highs.
Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/marksjarvis_on_money/2010/12/unemployment-for-college-graduates-
and-people-over-45-hit-highs.html
Marmaduke, A. S. (Ed.). (1988). Beyond the borders: A discussion of student financial aid and educational
opportunity in Texas, New York, and the Pacific Rim. Sacramento, CA: The Eureka Project, 1988.
Marsden, G. M. (1994). The soul of the American university: From Protestant establishment to established
nonbelief. New York: Oxford University Press.
Martin, D. (2011, May 11). Ind. Gov. signs 80 bills into law, including budget. Bloomberg Businessweek.
Retrieved from www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9N58MVG0.htm
Martorell, P. , & McFarlin, I. (2007). Help or hindrance? The effects of college remediation on academic and
labor market outcomes. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(2), 436454.
McConnell, T. R. , & Mortimer, K. P. (1970). The faculty in university governance. Berkeley, CA: Center for
Research and Development in Higher Education, University of California.
McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
McDonough, P. M. , & Calderone, S. (2006). The Meaning of Money: Perceptual Differences Between College
Counselors and Low-income Families About College Costs and Financial Aid. American Behavioral Scientist,
49(12), 17031718. doi:10.1177/0002764206289140
McDonough, P. M. , & Fann, A. (2007). The study of inequality. In P. Gumport (Ed.), Sociology of higher
education (pp. 5393). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
McGrath, E. J. (1970). Should students share the power? A study of their role in college and university
governance. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
McKeown, M. P. (1996). State funding formulas: Promise fulfilled? In D. S. Honeyman , J. L. Wattenbarger & K.
C. Westbrook (Eds.), A struggle to survive: Funding higher education in the next century (pp. 4985). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
McLendon, M. K. , Hearn, J. C. , & Deaton, R. (2006). 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.
McLendon, M. K. , Hearn, J. C. , & Mokher, C. (2009). Partisans, professionals, and power: The role of political
factors in state higher education funding. Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 686713.
McPherson, M. S. (1978). The demand for higher education. In D. W. Breneman & C. E. Finn, Jr . (Eds.), Public
policy and private higher education (pp. 143146). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
McPherson, M. S. , & Schapiro, M. O. (1991). Keeping college affordable: Government and educational
opportunity. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
McPherson, M. S. , & Schapiro, M. O. (1998). The student aid game: Meeting need and rewarding talent in
American higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Megino, N. (2011, July 16). CSU Tuition increases 12 percent. Danville Patch.
Mendez, J. P. (2006). The History of the Pillsbury Doughboy: The Essential Elements of the Federal Pell Grant.
Ph. D. Dissertation, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.

Mercer, C. (2008). Title III and Title V of the higher education act: Background and reauthorization issues. U.S.
Congressional Research Service RL31647. Retrieved from
http://congressionalresearch.com/RL31647/document.php?study=Title+III+and+Title+V+of+the+Higher+Educati
on+Act+Background+and+Reauthorization+Issues
Metcalf, K. K. , & Paul, K. M. (2006). Enhancing or destroying equity? An examination of educational vouchers.
In E. P. St. John (Ed.), Public policy and equal educational opportunity: School reforms, postsecondary
encouragement, and state policies on postsecondary education, Readings on equal education Vol. 21 (pp.
3774). New York: AMS Press, Inc.
305 Meyer, H.-D. , St. John, E. P. , Chankseliani, M. , & Uribe, L. (Eds.). (2013). Fairness in access to higher
education in a global perspective: Reconciling excellence, efficiency, and justice. Rotterdam. The Netherlands:
Sense Publications.
Meyer, H.-D. , St. John, E. P. , Javala, M. , Kroth, A. J. , & Somers, P. (2013). Fairness in access to higher
education: Towards a global public debate 277. In H.-D. Meyer , E. P. St. John , M. Chankseliani & L. Uribe
(Eds.), Fairness in access to higher education in a global perspective: Reconciling excellence, efficiency, and
justice (pp. 277288). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publications.
Michigan Department of Education. (2006). State of Michigan improved high school graduation requirements.
Retrieved from www.michigan.gov/documents/Final_HS_Grad_Requirements_One-
Pager_5_158245_7.04.06.pdf
Michigan Department of Education. (2016). Statewide Graduation and Dropout Rates Show Little Change.
Graduation Rate Remains at 79 Percent. Retrieved from www.michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-192-26847-407443--
,00.html
Michigan Department of Treasury. (2006). Michigan promise scholarship fact sheet. The Michigan merit award
scholarship act. MCL 390.1451 (1999). Retrieved from
www.michigan.gov/documents/mistudentaid/FactSheetPromiseFY07_192865_7.pdf
Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency. (1996). School finance in Michigan before and after the implementation of
proposal A: A comparison of FY 199394 and FY 199495 approaches to K12 school funding in Michigan.
Retrieved from http://senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Publications/JointRep/FINPROPA/95COMP.HTML
Michigan State Legislature. (2006, December 21). Michigan Promise Grant Act. Retrieved June 14, 2008, from
www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28exnku33psi2gky45e02vll45%29%29/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-act-479-of-
2006.pdf
Minnesota Budget Project. (2011). Governors budget cuts higher education as demand increases. Retrieved
from http://minnesotabudgetbites.org/2010/02/17/governors-budget-cuts-higher-education-as-demand-
increases/
Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board. (1982). Final report of the task force on future funding of post-
secondary education. Retrieved from www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/pre2003/other/830421.pdf
Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board. (1987). Headcount enrollment by racial/ethnic group. St. Paul:
MHECB.
Minnesota Office of Higher Education. (2011). Minnesota state grant program parameters over time. Retrieved
from www.ohe.state.mn.us/pdf/faresearch/parameters.pdf
Moltz, D. (2009, March 29). Competing completion initiatives. Inside higher education. Retrieved from
www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/05/05/completion
Montgomery, A. (2000, March 27). A poison divides us. Retrieved from
http://dir.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/03/27/connerly/index.html
Morse, A. , & Birnbach, K. (2010). In-state tuition and unauthorized immigrant students. Denver: National
Conference of State Legislatures.
Moses, M. S. (2001, Spring). Affirmative action and the creation of more favorable contexts of choice. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 336.
Moses, M. S. (2002). Embracing race: Why we need race-conscious education policy. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Moses, M. S. (2006). Why the affirmative action debate persists: The role of moral disagreement. Educational
Policy, 20(4), 567586.
Moses, M. S. (2010). Moral and instrumental rationales for affirmative action in five national contexts.
Educational Researcher, 39(3), 211228.
Moses, R. P. , & Cobb, C. E. (2001). Racial equations: Civil rights from Mississippi to the algebra project.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Muffo, J. , Voorhees, R. A. , & Hyslop, L. (2008). An analysis of the feasibility for the bachelors degree in
applied science and technology in the state of Michigan. Retrieved from
www.michigan.gov/documents/dleg/pa_118_of_2007_Sec_408_230299_7.pdf
Musoba, G. D. (2006). Accountability v. adequate funding: Which policies influence adequate preparation for
college? In E. P. St. John (Ed.), Public policy and equal educational opportunity: School reforms,
postsecondary encouragement, and state policies on postsecondary education. Readings on Equal Education
(Vol. 21, pp. 75125). New York: AMS Press.
National Association of College and University Business Officers. (2016). Tuition discount rates at private
colleges continue to climb. Retrieved from
www.nacubo.org/About_NACUBO/Press_Room/2015_Tuition_Discounting_Study.html
National Center for Education Statistics. (1970). Projections of education statistics to 197980. Washington, DC:
Author.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1980). Projections of education statistics to 198889. By M. M. Frankel
& D. E. Gerald . Washington, DC: Author.

306 National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). National educational longitudinal study 19882000. Data
Analysis System. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/das/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Table 154: state requirements for high school graduation, in
Carnegie units: 2004. Retrieved from www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/digest2005/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Status and trends in education of American Indians and Alaska
Natives: Enrollment in colleges and universities. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/nativetrends/ind_6_1.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). NAEP 2008 trends in academic progress. Washington, DC:
National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2008/2009479_1.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The condition of education, 2010. Retrieved from http://nces.
ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section1/indicator01.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Integrated postsecondary education data system. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Digest of Education Statistics Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016014.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The condition of education, 2016. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_304.15.asp
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2008). Measuring Up 2008: The state-by-state report
card for higher education. Retrieved from http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org/
National Commission on the Financing of Postsecondary Education. (1973). Financing post-secondary
education in the United States. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics.
Retrieved from www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Math_Standards/12752_exec_pssm.pdf
National Education Association. (1894). Report on the committee of ten. Washington, DC: Author.
National Governors Association. (2007). Innovation: Building a science, technology, engineering, and math
agenda. Washington, DC: Author.
National Research Council. (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability in education. In M. Hout & W. W.
Elliott (Eds.), Committee on incentives and test-based in public education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
National Science Foundation. (2017). FY 2017 Budget request to congress. Retrieved from
www.nsf.gov/pubs/2016/nsf16034/nsf16034.pdf
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2016). Current term enrollment estimates, 2016. Retrieved
from https://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/CurrentTermEnrollment-Fall2016.pdf
Nelms, C. (2011). Strengthening Americas historically Black colleges and universities: A call to action. Paper
presented at the NCCU Symposium Setting the Agenda for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, June
24, 2010, Durham, NC. Retrieved from www.nccu.edu/formsdocs/proxy.cfm?file_id=1447
Ness, E. , & Tucker, R. (2008, Spring). Eligibility effects on college access: Under-represented student
perceptions of Tennessees merit aid program. Research in Higher Education, 49, 569588.
New York State Senate. (2011). Senate passes UB 2020 legislation. Retrieved from www.nysenate.gov/press-
release/senate-passes-ub-2020-legislation
Newman, F. (1971). US task force on higher education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Newton, J. (2006). Justice for all: Earl Warren and the nation he made. New York: Riverhead Books.
North Carolina Community College System. (2008). A matter of facts: North Carolina community college system
fact book. Retrieved from www.nccommunitycolleges.edu/Publications/docs/Publications/fb2008.pdf
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Oakes, J. (2003). Critical conditions for equity and diversity in college access: Informing policy and monitoring
results. UC Berkeley: University of California All Campus Consortium on Research for Diversity. Retrieved from
www.escholarship.org/uc/item/427737xt
Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Obama, B. (2008, January 18). Quoted in: Obama criticized for Reagan reference, CNN Politics. Retrieved from
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/18/obama-criticized-for-reagan-reference/
Obama, B. (2010). Remarks of President Barack ObamaAs prepared for delivery address to Joint Session of
Congress. Retrieved from www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-of-president-barack-obama-address-
to-joint-session-of-congress/
307 Office of Postsecondary Education. (2011). Federal TRIO programshome page. Retrieved from
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html
Office of Revenue and Tax Analysis. (2002). School finance reform in Michigan proposal: A retrospective.
Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Treasury.
OLeary, K. (2009, June 27). The legacy of proposition 13. Time US. Retrieved from
www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1904938,00.html
Oliver, I. (2009). College access challenge grant: The federal policy climate explained. Powerpoint presentation
by HCM strategists. Retrieved from www.wiche.edu/info/cacg/meetings/boulder09/oliver.pdf
Orfield, G. (1988). Exclusion of the majority: Shrinking college access and public policy in metropolitan Los
Angeles. The Urban Review, 20(3), 147163.
Orfield, G. (1997). Going to college. In K. K. Wong (Ed.), Advances in educational policy analysis: Vol. 3. The
Indiana youth opportunity study: A symposium (pp. 332). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Orfield, G. , Marin, P. , Flores, S. M. , & Garces, L. (2007). Charting the future of college affirmative action:
Legal victories, continuing Aatacks, and new research (pp. 173204). Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project, UCLA
School of Education. www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/affirmativeaction/charting_aa.php
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010). PISA 2009 results: Executive
summary. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/60/46619703.pdf
Orrill, R. (2001). Grades 1114: The heartland or the wasteland of American education? In M. C. Johanek (Ed.),
A faithful mirror: Reflections on the college board and education in America (pp. xxv, 400). New York: College
Board.
Ort, S. , Williford, L. , & St. John, E. P. (2012). Carolina covenant: Reducing the retention gap. In E. P. St. John
& R. Winkle-Wagner (Eds.), Expanding post-secondary opportunity for underrepresented students: Theory and
practice of academic capital formation. Readings on Equal Education (Vol. 26). New York: AMS Press.
OSullivan, K. , Mulligan, R. , Kuster, M. , Smith, R. , & Hannon, C. (2017). A college-focused mentoring
programme for students in socioeconomically disadvantaged schools: The impact of mentoring relationship and
frequency on college going confidence, application efficacy and aspirations. Widening Participation and Lifelong
Learning, 19(2), 113141.
Palmer, J. (2011). Summary tables, fiscal year (FY) 201011: Table 2. Grapevine survey of state appropriations
to higher education. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from
www.grapevine.ilstu.edu/tables/FY11/Grapevine_Table2.pdf
Papay, J. P. , Murnane, R. J. , & Willett, J. B. (2008). The consequences of high school exit examinations for
struggling low-income urban students: Evidence from Massachusetts. NBER Working Paper Series (14186).
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Parsons, M. D. (2004). Lobbying in higher education: Theory and practice. In E. P. St. John & M. D. Parsons
(Eds.), Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and new rationales (pp. 215230). Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Pascarella, E. T. , & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). A third decade of research: How college affects students (Vol. 2).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pattengale, J. A. (2008). The purpose-guided student: Dream to succeed. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Pattengale, J. A. (2017). The Whole-Student Approach as a Retention Model. In D. Schoem , C. Modey, C. &
E. P. St. John (Eds.), Teaching Matters: Teaching for the Whole Student with Mind, Heart, and Spirit. Sterling,
VA: Stylus.
Patton, L. D. , Morelon, C. , Whitehead, D. M. , & Hossler, D. (2006). Campus-based retention initiatives: Does
the emperor have clothes? In E. P. St. John & M. Wilkerson (Eds.), Reframing persistence research to support
academic success. New Directions for Institutional Research (Vol. 130, pp. 924). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Paulsen, M. B. (1996a). Higher education and productivity: An afterword. Thought and Action: NEA Higher
Education Journal, 12(2), 135139.
Paulsen, M. B. (1996b). Higher education and state workforce productivity. Thought and Action: NEA Higher
Education Journal, 12(1), 5577.
Paulsen, M. B. (2001a). The economics of human capital and investment in higher education. In M. B. Paulsen
& J. C. Smart (Eds.), The finance of higher education: Theory, research, policy & practice (pp. 5594). New
York: Agathon Press.
Paulsen, M. B. (2001b). The economics of the public sector: The nature and role of public policy in higher
education finance. In M. B. Paulsen & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The finance of higher education: Theory, research,
policy & practice (pp. 95132). New York: Agathon Press.
Pelavin, S. H. , & Kane, M. B. (1988). Minority participation in higher education. Prepared for Radner, R. (1975).
Demand and supply in US higher education. Washington, DC: Pelavin Associates.
Pelavin, S. H. , & Kane, M. B. (1990). Changing the odds: Factors increasing access to college. New York:
College Board.
308 Perna, L. W. , & Thomas, S. (2009). Barriers to college opportunity: The unintended consequences of
state-man dated testing. Educational Policy, 23(3), 451479. Retrieved from
http://epx.sagepub.com/content/23/3/451
Perna, L. W. , & Titus, M. (2004). Understanding difference in the choice of college attended: The role of state
public policies. Review of Higher Education, 27(4), 501525.
Perna, L. W. , & Titus, M. (2005). The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college
enrollment: An examination of racial/ethnic group differences. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 485518.
Perry, T. , Moses, R. , Wynne, J. , Delpit, L. , & Cortes, E. (2010). Quality education as a constitutional right:
Organizing to create a movement. Boston: Beacon Press.
Peter, K. , & Forrest Cataldi, E. (2005, May). The road less traveled? Students who enroll in multiple
institutions. National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2005157. U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC: NCES.
Peter, K. , & Horn, L. (2005). Gender differences in participation and completion of undergraduate education
and how they have changed over time. National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2005169. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Peterson, M. (2016). FY 201617 Public University Performance Funding. Retrieved from
www.house.mi.gov/hfa/PDF/HigherEducation/Public_University_Performance_Funding_fy2016-17_memo.pdf
Peterson, P. E. , Howell, W. G. , Wolf, P. J. , & Campbell, D. E. (2003). School vouchers: Results from
randomized experiments. In C. M. Hoxby (Ed.), The economics of school choice. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Pew Hispanic Center. (2004). Hispanic college enrollment: Less intensive and less heavily subsidized.
Washington DC: Author.

Pew Hispanic Center. (2006). Recently arrived migrants and the congressional debate on immigration.
Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/15.pdf
Pineda, D. (2009). Examining a federal intervention to improve Latino college participation: Evidence from title
V developing Hispanic-Serving institutions program, Public Policy and Sociology. University of Michigan: Ann
Arbor.
Planty, M. , Provasnik, S. , & Daniel, B. (2007). High school coursetaking. National Center for Educational
Statistics, NCES 2007065. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, NCES.
Polyani, K. (2001). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Posselt, J. R. (2009). The rise and fall of need based grants: A critical review of presidential discourse on
higher education. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 26., pp. 183226).
New York: Agathon Press.
Powers, J. B. , & St. John, E. P. (Eds.). (2017). Higher education, commercialization, and university-business
relationships in comparative context. In Issues in globalization and social justice: Comparative studies in
international higher education. AMS Monograph Series (Vol. 2). New York: AMS Press.
Presidents CouncilState Universities of Michigan. (2009). Enrollment report fall 2008. Retrieved from
http://pcsum.org/Portals/0/docs/PCSUM2008-Enrollment-Report.pdf
Priest, D. M. , Becker, W. E. , Hossler, D. , & St. John, E. P. (2002). Why an incentive-based budgeting system
in the public sector and why now? In D. M. Priest , W. E. Becker , D. Hossler & E. P. St. John (Eds.), Incentive-
based budgeting systems in public universities (pp. 18). Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Priest, D. , & St. John, E. P. (Eds.). (2006). Privatization and public universities. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Public Sector Consultants. (2003). Michigans higher education system: A guide for state policy makers. Big
Rapids, MI: Ferris State University.
Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. (2011). QS world rankings 2011/12. Retrieved from www.topuniversities.
com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011
Rampey, B. D. , Dion, G. S. , & Donahue, P. L. (2009). NAEP 2008: Trends in academic progress. National
Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2009479. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choices are
undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Reese, W. J. (2005). Americas public schools: From the common school to no child left behind. Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Resnick, D. P. , & Resnick, L. B. (1985). Standards, curriculum, and performance: A historical and comparative
perspective. Educational Researcher, 14(4), 520.
Reynolds, P. J. , Gross, J. , Millard, B. , & Pattengale, J. (2010). Using longitudinal mixed-methods research to
look at undeclared students. New Directions in Institutional Research, 2010(S2), 5366.
Ridden, E. (2017, September 6), Trump administration end DACA. Inside higher education. Retrieved from
www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/06/trump-administration-announces-plans-wind-down-daca-within-six-
months?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=2e93ed3922-
DNU20170906&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc044212e93ed3922197397293&mc_cid=2e93ed3922&
mc_eid=afef219005
Ridenour, C. S. , & St. John, E. P. (2003). Private scholarships and school choice: Innovation or class
reproduction? In L. F. Mirn & E. P. St. John (Eds.), Reinterpreting urban schools reform: Have urban schools
failed, or has the reform movement failed urban schools? (pp. 177206). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
309 Ritter dos Santos, M. E. (2017). University Technology transfer in Brazil. In J. Powers & E. P. St. John
(Eds.), Higher education, commercialization, and university-business relationships in comparative context,
issues in globalization and social justice volume 2. New York: AMS Press, Inc.
Rizvi, F. (2006). The ideology of privatization in higher education: A global perspective. In D. M. Priest & E. P.
St. John (Eds.), Privatization and public universities (pp. 6584). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Rizzo, M. , & Ehrenberg, R. (2004). Resident and non-resident tuition and enrollment at flagship state
universities. In C. Hoxby (Ed.), College choices: The economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for
it (pp. 303353). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roderick, M. , Nagaoka, J. , Coca, V. , & Moeller, E. (2008). From high school to the future: Potholes on the
road to college. Retrieved from Chicago: http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/CCSR_Potholes_Report.pdf
Roderick, M. , Nagaoka, J. , Coca, V. , & Moeller, E. (2009). From high school to the future: Making hard work
pay Off. Retrieved from Chicago
http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/Making%20Hard%20Work%20Pay%20Off.pdf
Rong, L. , & Chen, R. (2013). Educational development in China: Policy and access. In E. P. St. John , J. Kim ,
& L. Yang (Eds.), Privatization and inequality: Comparative studies of college access, education policy, and
public finance. Globalization and social justice, Vol. 1. New York: AMS Press, Inc.
Rong, C. , & St. John, E. P. (2011). College student persistence, transfer, and dropout: Income and racial
differences in the effects of state finance policies. Journal of Higher Education, 82(5), 629660.
Rothstein, J. M. (2002). College performance predictions and the SAT. Berkeley, CA: Center for Labor
Economics, University of California.
Ruark, P. (2016). Rising tuition and Weak state funding and financial aid create more student debt. Lansing, MI:
Michigan League for Public Policy.
Ruben, R. (2011). The Pell and the poor: A regression discontinuity analysis of on-time college enrollment.
Research in Higher Education, 52, 118.

Salisbury, M. H. , Paulsen, M. B. , & Pascarella, E. T. (2011). Why do all the study abroad students look alike?
Applying an integrated student choice model to explore differences in the factors that influence white and
minority students intent to study abroad. Research in Higher Education, 52(2), 123150.
Schmidtlein, F. , & Berdahl, R. O. (2005). Autonomy and accountability: Who controls academe? In P. G.
Altbach , R. O. Berdahl & P. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the 21st century (2nd ed., Chap. 3).
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Schultz, C. (1968). The politics of public spending. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Seftor, N. S. , Mamun, A. , & Schirm, A. (2009). The impacts of regular upward bound on postsecondary
outcomes 79 years after scheduled high school graduation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
Seife, C. (2010). Proofiness: The dark arts of mathematical deception. New York: Viking.
Selix, C. (2010). New dual-credit trends emerge as pioneering post-secondary education options turn 25.
MinnPost.com. Retrieved from www.minnpost.com/nextdegree/2010/06/17/18944/new_dual-
credit_trends_emerge_as_pioneering_post-secondary_education_options_turns_25
Seltzer, R. (2016, September 7). Higher ed, contentious issue in recent years, flies under radar in North
Carolinas governors race. Inside Higher Ed, p. 6.
Selweski, C. (2011, March 10). Michigan Senate passes emergency manager bills. Daily Tribune. Retrieved
from www.dailytribune.com/articles/2011/03/10/news/doc4d78d0d4d764d009636769.txt
Shin, J. C. (2010). Impacts of performance-based accountability on institutional performance in the US. Higher
Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 60(1), 4768.
Shin, J. C. , & Milton, S. (2006). Rethinking tuition effects on enrollment in public four-year colleges and
universities. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 29(2),
213237.
Slaughter, S. E. (1991). The official ideology of higher education: Ironies and inconsistencies. In W. G. Tierney
(Ed.), Culture and ideology in higher education: Advancing a critical agenda (pp. 5986). New York: Praeger.
Slaughter, S. E. (1993). Retrenchment in the 1980s: The politics of prestige and gender. The Journal of Higher
Education, 64(3), 250282.
Slaughter, S. E. , & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial
university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S. E. , & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and
higher education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Smelser, J. J. , & Almond, G. (1974). Growth, structural change, and conflict in California higher education.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Somers, P. A. , Morosini, M. C. , Pan, M. S. , & Cofer, J. M. (2013). Brazils radical approach to expanding
access. In H.-D. Meyer , E. P. St. John , M. Chankseliani , & L. Uribe (Eds.), Fairness in access to higher
education in a global perspective: Reconciling excellence, efficiency, and justice (pp. 1540). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publications.
St. John, E. P. (1973). Students work from within now to influence higher education. California Journal, 4,
169171.
St. John, E. P. (1981). Public policy and college management: Title III of the higher education Act. New York:
Praeger Press.
310 St. John, E. P. (1989). The influence of student aid on persistence. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 19(3),
5268.
St. John, E. P. (1990). Price response in persistence decisions: An analysis of the High School and Beyond
senior cohort. Research in Higher Education, 31(4), 387403.
St. John, E. P. (1991a). A framework for reexamining state resource management strategies in higher
education. The Journal of Higher Education, 62(3), 263287.
St. John, E. P. (1991b). The transformation of liberal arts colleges: An analysis of selected case studies.
Review of Higher Education, 15(1), 83108.
St. John, E. P. (1992). Workable models for institutional research on the impact of student financial aid. Journal
of Student Financial Aid, 22(3), 1326.
St. John, E. P. (1993). Untangling the web: Using price-response measures in enrollment projections. The
Journal of Higher Education, 64(6), 676695.
St. John, E. P. (1994a). Assessing tuition and student aid strategies: Using price response measures to
simulate pricing alternatives. Research in Higher Education, 35(3), 301335.
St. John, E. P. (1994b). Prices, productivity and investment: Assessing financial strategies in higher education.
ASHE/ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 3. Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of
Education and Human Development.
St. John, E. P. (1994c). Retrenchment: A three-state study. Thought & Action, 10(2), 137142.
St. John, E. P. (1998). Higher education desegregation in the post-Fordice legal environment: An historical
perspective. In R. E. Fossey (Ed.), Race, the courts, and equal education: The limits of the law. Readings on
Equal Education (Vol. 15, pp. 101122). New York: AMS Press.
St. John, E. P. (1999). Evaluating state grant programs: A study of the Washington state grant programs.
Research in Higher Education, 40(2), 149170.
St. John, E. P. (2002). The access challenge: Rethinking the causes of the new inequality. Policy Issue Report
No. 200201. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center.
St. John, E. P. (2003). Refinancing the college dream: Access, equal opportunity, and justice for taxpayers.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
St. John, E. P. (2004). Public policy and research on college access: Lessons learned from NCES research and
state evaluation studies. In E. P. St. John (Ed.), Public policy and college access: Investigating the federal and

state roles in equalizing postsecondary opportunity. Readings on Equal Education (Vol. 19, pp. 181196). New
York: AMS Press.
St. John, E. P. (2006). Education and the public interest: School reform, public finance, and access to higher
education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
St. John, E. P. (2007). Finding social justice in educational policy: Rethinking theory and approaches in policy
research. In F. K. Stage , (Ed.), Using qualitative data to answer critical questions. New directions in
institutional research (Vol. 133, pp. 6780). San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.
St. John, E. P. (2009a). Action, reflection, and social justice: Integrating moral reasoning into professional
development. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
St. John, E. P. (2009b). College organization and professional development: Integrating moral reasoning and
reflective practice. New York: Routledge.
St. John, E. P. (2010, June 2). Access and success: Strategies for historically Black colleges and universities.
Paper presented at Setting an Agenda for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, sponsored by North
Carolina Central University, Durham, North Carolina.
St. John, E. P. (2013a). Research, actionable knowledge, and social change: Reclaiming social responsibility
through research partnerships. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
St. John, E. P. (2013b). The Legacy of the Gi Bill. In Fairness in access to higher education in a global
perspective (pp. 5776). Boston, MA: Sense Publishers.
St. John, E. P. (2013c). Tools of state, using research to inform policy decisions in higher education.
International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 118144. doi: 10.4471/rimcis.2013.17
St. John, E. P. (2017). Conclusions. In J. Powers & E. P. St. John (Eds.), Higher education, commercialization,
and university-business relationships in comparative context. Vol. 2, Globalization and social justice:
Comparative studies in international higher education (pp. 217239). Grenwich, CT: AMS Press, Inc.
St. John, E. P. , Affolter-Caine, B. , Chung, A. S. (2007). Race-conscious student financial aid: Constructing an
agenda for research, litigation, and policy development. In G. Orfield , P. Marin , S. M. Flores & Garces, L.
(Eds.), Charting the future of college affirmative action: Legal victories, continuing attacks, and new research
(pp. 173204). Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project, UCLA School of Education.
St. John, E. P. , Andrieu, S. C. , Oescher, J. , & Starkey, J. B. (1994). The influence of student aid on within-
year persistence in four-year colleges. Research in Higher Education, 35(4), 455480.
311 St. John, E. P. , Bigelow, V. M. , Lijana, K. , & Masse, J. (2015). Left behind: Urban high schools and the
failure of market reform. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
St. John, E. P. , & Byce, C. (1982). The changing federal role in student financial aid. In M. Kramer (Ed.),
Meeting student aid needs in a period of retrenchment (pp. 2140). New Directions for Higher Education, No. 40.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
St. John, E. P. , Cabrera, A. F. , Nora, A. , & Asker, E. H. (2000). Economic influences on persistence
reconsidered: How can finance research inform the reconceptualization of persistence models? In J. M. Braxton
(Ed.), Reworking the departure puzzle (pp. 2947). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Reprinted in: Stage,
F. K. , Carter, D. F. , Hossler, D. , & st. John, E. P. (Eds.) (2003). Theoretical perspectives on college students.
ASHE Reader Series. Boston: Pearson.
St. John, E. P. , & Chung, C. G. (2004). Merit and equity: Rethinking award criteria in the Michigan scholarship
program. In E. P. St. John & M. D. Parsons (Eds.), Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and
new rationales (pp. 124140). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
St. John, E. P. , Chung, A. S. , Musoba, G. D. , & Chung, C. G. (2006). Pathways and markets. In E. P. St.
John et al . (Eds.), Education and the public interest: School reform, public finance, and access to higher
education (pp. 115130). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
St. John, E. P. , Chung, C. G. , Musoba, G. D. , & Simmons, A. B. (2006). Financial access. In E. P. St. John et
al . (Eds.), Education and the public interest: School reform, public finance, and access to higher education (pp.
83114). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
St. John, E. P. , Chung, C. G. , Musoba, G. D. , Simmons, A. B. , Wooden, O. S. , & Mendez, J. (2004).
Expanding college access: The impact of state finance strategies. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for
Education.
St. John, E. P. & Dalton, R. (2017). College for every student: Building a research partnership supporting an
access network. In E. P. St. John , K. Lijana, K. & G. M. Musoba (Eds.), Using action inquiry in education
reform: Organizing guide for improving pathways to college. Sterling, VA: Stylus Press.
St. John, E. P. , Daun-Barnett, N. J. , & Moronski-Chapman, K. (2013). Public policy and higher education. New
York: Routledge.
St. John, E. P. , & Girmay, F. (in preparation). Social action toward social justice: Community based reform in
Detroit. Palgrave.
St. John, E. P. , & Elliott, R. J. (1994). Reframing policy research: A critical examination of research on federal
student aid programs. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 10, pp.
126180). New York: Agathon.
St. John, E. P. , Hannon, C. , & Chen, W. (2017). Higher education leadership in universities, colleges, and
technical Schools around the world. In D. Waite & I. Bogotch (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of
educational leadership. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons Publishing.
St. John, E. P. , & Hossler, D. (1998). Higher education desegregation in the post-Fordice legal environment: A
critical-empirical perspective. In R. E. Fossey (Ed.), Race, the courts, and equal education: The limits of the
law. Readings on Equal Education (Vol. 15, pp. 123156). New York: AMS Press.
St. John, E. P. , Hu, S. , & Fisher, A. S. (2011). Breaking through the access barrier: Academic capital
formation informing public policy. New York: Routledge.

St. John, E. P. , Hu, S. , & Weber, J. (1999). Affordability in public colleges and universities: The influence of
student aid on persistence in Indiana public higher education. Policy Research Report 992. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana Education Policy Center.
St. John, E. P. , Hu, S. , & Weber, J. (2000). State policy and the affordability of public higher education: The
influence of state grants on persistence in Indiana. Policy Research Report, 0002. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
Education Policy Center.
St. John, E. P. , Hu, S. , & Weber, J. (2001). State policy and the affordability of public higher education: The
influence of state grants on persistence in Indiana. Research in Higher Education, 42, 401428.
St. John, E. P. , Kim, J. , & Yang, L. (2013). Privatization and inequality: Comparative studies of college access,
education policy, and public finance: Vol. 1. Globalization and social justice. Comparative Studies in
International Higher Education (Vol. 1). New York: AMS Press.
St. John, E. P. , Kirshstein, R. , & Noell, J. (1991). The effects of student aid on persistence: A sequential
analysis of the high school and beyond senior cohort. Review of Higher Education, 14(3), 383406.
St. John, E. P. , Kline, K. A. , & Asker, E. H. (2001). The call for public accountability: Rethinking the linkages to
student outcomes. In D. E. Heller (Ed.), The states and public higher education: Affordability, access, and
accountability (pp. 219242). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
St. John, E. P. , Lijana, K. , & Musoba, G. D. (2017). Using Action Inquiry in Engaged Research: A Professional
Guide. Sterling, VA: Stylus Press.
312 St. John, E. P. , Loescher, S. A. , & Bardzell, J. S. (2003). Improving reading and literacy in grades 15: A
resource guide to research-based programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
St. John, E. P. , Manset-Williamson, G. M. , Chung, C. G. , & Michael, R. (2005, August). Assessing the
rationales for educational reforms: An examination of policy claims about professional development,
comprehensive reform, and direct instruction. Education Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 480519.
St. John, E. P. , Mass, J. C. , Fisher, A. S. , Moronski-Chapman, K. , & Lee, M. (2013). Beyond the bridge:
Actionable research informing the development of a comprehensive intervention strategy. American Behavioral
Scientist, 58(8), 10511070, doi:0002764213515233
St. John, E. P. , & Masten, C. L. (1990). Return on the federal investment in student financial aid: An
assessment of the high school class of 1972. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 20(3), 423.
St. John, E. P. , McKinney, J. , & Tuttle, T. (2006). Using action inquiry to address critical challenges. In E. P.
St. John & M. Wilkerson (Eds.), Reframing persistence research to support academic success. New Directions
for Institutional Research (Vol. 30, pp. 6376). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
St. John, E. P. , & Moronski, K. (2008). The impact of the Florida bright futures scholarship program on college
preparation and access for low-income and minority students. A paper prepared for ENLACE Florida. Retrieved
from http://enlacefl.usf.edu/research/Research%20Briefs/2009/The-Impact-of-FL-BrightFuturesScholarship-on-
CollegePrep.pdf
St. John, E. P. , & Moronski, K. (in press). The late great state of California: The legacy of the master plan, the
decline in access, and a new crisis. In E. P. St. John , J. Kim & L. Yang (Eds.), Privatization and inequality:
Comparative studies of college access, education policy, and public finance: Vol. 1. Globalization and social
justice. Comparative Studies in International Higher Education (Vol. 1). New York: AMS Press.
St. John, E. P. , & Musoba, G. D. (2006). Academic Access. In E. P. St. John (Ed.), Education and the Public
Interest: School Reform, Public Finance, and Access to Higher Education. New York: Springer.
St. John, E. P. , & Musoba, G. D. (2010). Pathways to academic success: Expanding opportunity for
underrepresented students. New York: Routledge.
St. John, E. P. , Musoba, G. D. , Simmons, A. B. , & Chung, C.-G. (2002). Meeting the access challenge:
Indianas twenty first century scholars program. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education.
St. John, E. P. , Musoba, G. D. , Simmons, A. B. , & Chung, C.-G. (2004). Meeting the access challenge:
Indianas twenty first century scholars program. Research in Higher Education, 45(8), 829871.
St. John, E. P. , & Noell, J. (1987, July). Student loans and higher education opportunities: Evidence on access,
persistence, and choice of major. Presented at the Fourth Annual NASSGP/NCHELP Research Network
Conference. St. Louis, MO: Washington University.
St. John, E. P. , & Noell, J. (1989). The impact of financial aid on access: An analysis of progress with special
consideration of minority access. Research in Higher Education, 30(6), 563582.
St. John, E. P. , Oescher, J. , & Andrieu, S. C. (1992). The influence of prices on within-year persistence by
traditional college-age students in four year colleges. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 22(1), 2738.
St. John, E. P. , Ort, S. , & Williford, L. (2012). Carolina covenant: Reducing the retention gap. In R. Winkle-
Wagner , P. J. Bowman & E. P. St. John (Eds.), Expanding post-secondary opportunity for underrepresented
students: Theory and practice of academic capital formation. Readings on Equal Education (Vol. 26., pp.
235254). New York: AMS Press, Inc.
St. John, E. P. , & Parsons, M. D. (Eds.). (2004). Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and
new rationales. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
St. John, E. P. , Paulsen, M. B. , & Starkey, J. B. (1996). The nexus between college choice and persistence.
Research in Higher Education, 37(2), 175220.
St. John, E. P. , Pineda, D. , & Moronski, K. (2010). Higher education in the United States: Legal, financial and
educational remedies to racial and income inequality in college access. In E. P. St. John , J. Kim & L. Yang
(Eds.), Privatization and inequality: Comparative studies of college access, education policy, and public finance:
Vol. 1. Globalization and social justice. Comparative Studies in International Higher Education (Vol. 1). New
York: AMS Press.
St. John, E. P. , & Regan, M. C. (1973). Students in campus governance: Reasoning and models for student
involvement. Research Monograph No. 11, Department of Applied Behavioral Sciences. Davis, CA: University
of California-Davis.

St. John, E. P. , & Ridenour, C. (2001). Market forces and strategic adaptation: The influence of private
scholarships on planning in urban school systems. The Urban Review, 33, 269290.
St. John, E. P. , & Ridenour, C. S. (2000). Market forces and strategic adaptation: The influence of private
scholarships on educational improvement in urban schools. Prepared for the Smith Richardson Foundation.
Dayton, OH: University of Dayton.
313 St. John, E. P. , Simmons, A. B. , Hoezee, L. D. , Wooden, O. S. , & Musoba, G. D. (2002). Trends in
higher education finance in Indiana compared to peer states and the US: A changing context, critical issues,
and strategic goals. Policy Research Report, No. 0202. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center.
St. John, E. P. , & Weathersby, G. B. (1980). Management development in higher education: Intervention
strategies for developing colleges and universities. International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher
Education, 4, 105119.
St. John, E. P. , & Wilkerson, M. (Eds.). (2006a). Reframing persistence research to support academic success.
New Directions for Institutional Research, Vol. 130. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
St. John, E. P. , & Wilkerson, M. (Eds.) (2006b) Reframing persistence research to improve academic success.
New Directions for Institutional Research, Vol. 30. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
St. John, E. P. , Williams, K. , & Moronski, K. (2010). Public policy and inequality in postsecondary opportunity:
Educational statistics and the failure of education reform international. In E. Backer , P. Peterson & B. McGaw
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of education (3rd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
St. John, E. P. , & Wooden, O. S. (2006). Privatization and federal funding for higher education. In D. M. Priest
& E. P. St. John (Eds.), Privatization and public universities (pp. 3864). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press.
State of Tennessee. (2017). Tennessee Promise. Retrieved from http://tnpromise.gov/
State Student Assistance Commission of Indiana. (2011). Twenty-first-century scholars pledge. Retrieved from
www.in.gov/ssaci/2374.htm
Steinberg, J. (2002). The gatekeepers: Inside the admissions process of a premier college. New York: Viking.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: Norton.
Stranahan, H. , & Borg, M. (2004). Some futures are brighter than others: The net benefits received by Florida
Bright Futures scholarship recipients. Public Finance Review, 31(1), 105126.
Strogatz, S. (2010, September 19). Fibbing with numbers: A science writer examines the many ways of fudging
figures. The New York Times Review of Books, 8.
Taylor, C. (2007). A secular age. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Teitelbaum, P. (2003). The influence of high school graduation requirement policies in mathematics and
science on student course-taking patterns and achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1),
3157.
Thelin, J. R. (1982). Higher education and its useful past: Applied history in research and planning. Cambridge,
MA: Schenkman Publishing Co.
Thelin, J. R. (2004a). Higher education and the public trough: A historical perspective. In E. P. St. John & M. D.
Parsons (Eds.), Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and new rationales. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Thelin, J. R. (2004b). A history of American higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Thelin, J. R. (2010). Horizontal history and higher education. In M. B. Gasman (Ed.), The history of higher
education: Methods of understanding the past. New York: Routledge.
Theobald, N. (2003). The need for issues-driven school funding reform in urban schools. In L. F. Mirn & E. P.
St. John (Eds.), Reinterpreting urban school reform: Have urban schools failed, or has the reform movement
failed urban schools? (pp. 3352). Systems for K-12 and Higher Education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Tierney, W. G. (2015). Rethinking Education and Poverty. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tierney, W. G. , Corwin, Z. B. , & Colyar, J. E. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective
outreach. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Tierney, W. G. , & Hagedorn, L. S. (Eds.). (2002). Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities for all
students. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Tierney, W. G. , & Venegas, K. (2007). The cultural ecology of financial aid decision making. In E. P. St. John
(Ed.), Confronting educational inequality: Reframing, building understanding, and making change. Readings on
Equal Education (Vol. 22, pp. 136). New York: AMS Press.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of
Educational Research, 45(1), 89125.
Tinto, V. (1982). The limits of theory and practice in student attrition. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 687700.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Titus, M. A. (2006). Understanding college degree completion of students with low socioeconomic status: The
influence of the institutional financial context. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 371398.
Titus, M. A. (2010). Understanding the relationship between working while in college and future salaries. In L.
W. Perna (Ed.), Understanding the working college student: New research and its implications for policy and
practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
314 Toutkoushian, R. K. , Hossler, D. , DesJardins, S. J. , McCall, B. , & Canche, M. G. (2015). The effect of
participating in Indianas twenty-first century scholars on college enrollments. Review of Higher Education,
39(1), 5995.
Townsend, B. A. (2001). Redefining the community college transfer mission. Community College Review,
29(2), 2942.

Trow, M. (1974a). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Trow, M. (1974b). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. In Policies for higher
education: General report on the conference on future structures of post-secondary education (pp. 55101).
Paris: OECD.
Turner, S. , & Bound, J. (2003). Closing the gap or widening the divide: The effects of the G.I. Bill and world war
II on the educational outcomes of Black Americans. The Journal of Economic History, 63(01), 145177.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). Education Pays. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). American factfinder. Retrieved from www.census.gov/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). American factfinder. Retrieved from www.census.gov/
U.S. Department of Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Impacts of upward bound: Final report for Phase I of the national
evaluation. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/higher/upward.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Work first, study second: Adult undergraduates who combine
employment and postsecondary enrollment. By A. Berker & L. Horn . Project Officer: C. D. Carroll. National
Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2003167. Washington, DC: NCES.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Changing the future of US higher education.
Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Guide to US department of education programs: Fiscal year 2010.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/gtep/gtep.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2011a). Program integrity questions and answers: satisfactory academic
progress. laws and Guidance/Higher education. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2009/sap.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2011b). College completion toolkit. Retrieved from
www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/cc-toolkit.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2011c). Federal Pell grant program. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/fpg/funding.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2011d). Upward bound. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/trioupbound/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Fiscal year 2017 budget summary and background information.
Downloaded https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget17/summary/17summary.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Advisory Committee for Student Financial Assistance (ACSFA)
Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/acsfa/index.html
U.S. Department of Education & National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics,
2016. Washington, DC Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2016menu_tables.asp
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program
Studies Service, National Evaluation of Student Support Services. (2010). Examination of Student Outcomes
After Six Years, Washington, D.C.: author.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2011). Guidance on the voluntary use of race to achieve diversity in
postsecondary education. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/guidance-pse-201111.html
U.S. News & World Report. (2011). National university rankings 2012. Retrieved from
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/
University of California Board of Regents v. Bakke 438 US 265. (1978).
University of North Carolina General Administration. (2011). The University of North Carolina: A multicampus
university. Retrieved from www.northcarolina.edu/
University System of Georgia. (2012). How HOPE changes will affect USG students. Retrieved from
www.usg.edu/student_affairs/students/how_hope_changes_will_affect_usg_students
Urban Institute. (2004). Undocumented immigrants: Facts and figures. Retrieved from
www.urban.org/publications/1000587.html
Vedder, R. K. , & Denhart, M. (2007). Michigan higher education: Facts and fiction. In M. C. f. P. Policy (Ed.),
Policy brief. Midland, MI: Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Veysey, L. R. (1965). The emergence of the American university. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Voorhees, R. (2001). Community colleges. In M. B. Paulsen & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The finance of higher
education: Theory, research, policy, and practice (pp. 480500). New York: Agathon.
315 Wattrick, J. T. (2011, November 21). Detroit Public Schools reduced deficit to $89 million, says emergency
financial manager Roy Roberts. Retrieved from
www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2011/11/detroit_public_schools_reduced.html
Weathersby, G. B. , & Balderston, F. E. (1972). PPBS in higher education planning and management: Part I, an
overview. Higher Education, 1, 191206.
Weathersby, G. B. , Jacobs, F. , Jackson, G. A. , St. John, E. P. , & Tingley, T. (1977). The development of
institutions of higher education: Theory and assessment of four possible areas of federal intervention. In M.
Guttentage (Ed.), The evaluation studies review annual (Vol. 2, pp. 488546). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Wei, C. C. , & Horn, L. (2002). Persistence and attainment of beginning students with Pell grants. NCES
2002169. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002169.pdf
Wescott II, J. W. (2005). A Vision of an Open Door: The Establishment and Expansion of the North Carolina
Community College System. (EdD Dissertation), North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. (2010). An evaluation of Colorados college opportunity
fund and related policies. Boulder, CO. Retrieved from
http://highered.colorado.gov/Publications/Reports/legislative/COF/COFEvalReport_200905.pdf

White v. Engler. (2001, August 17). U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, No. 00-CV-72882.
Wildavsky, A. (1969). Rescuing policy analysis from PPBS. Public Administration Review, 29(2), 189202.
Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/973700
Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston: Little, Brown.
Wildavsky, B. (2012). The great brain drain: How global universities are reshaping the world. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Williams, J. B. (1988). Title VI regulation of higher education. In J. B. Williams (Ed.), Desegregating Americas
colleges and universities: Title VI regulation of higher education (pp. 3353). New York: Teachers College Press.
Williams, J. B. (1997). Race discrimination in public higher education. New York: Praeger.
Willie, C. V. (1976). Is school desegregation still a good idea? The School Review, 84(3), 313325.
Wilson, S. , Fuller, R. , & Angeli, M. (2009). Ready or not, here they come: Community college enrollment
projections 20092019. Sacramento, CA: California Postsecondary Education Commission.
Wisconsin Higher Education Business Roundtable. (n.d.). A brief history of the Wisconsin idea. Retrieved from
www.wiroundtable.org/Web_Site_PDFs/Nov16_meeting/Roundtable_Wisconsin_Idea_FINAL.pdf
Witte, J. F. (1998). The Milwaukee voucher experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(4),
229252.
Witte, J. F. (2000). The market approach to education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wong, K. K. (2003). Federal Title I as a reform strategy in urban schools. In L. F. Mirn & E. P. St. John (Eds.),
Reinterpreting urban school reform: Have urban schools failed, or has the reform movement failed urban
schools? (pp. 5576). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Wraga, W. G. (1994). Democracys high school. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Wray, J. (2011). New formula would base higher education funding on performance measures. The franklin on-
line. Retrieved from
www.thefranklinonline.com/city_state/article/new_formula_would_base_higher_education_funding_on_perform
ance_measures
Zimmer Hendrick, R. , Hightower, W. H. , & Gregory, D. E. (2006). State funding limitations and community
college open door policy: Conflicting priorities? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30,
627640.
Zumeta, W. (2001). Public policy and accountability in higher education: Lessons from the past and present for
the new millennium. In D. E. Heller (Ed.), The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access
and accountability (pp. 155197). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Zumeta, W. (2004). State higher education financing: Demand imperatives meet structural, cyclic and political
constraints. In M. D. Parsons & E. P. St. John (Eds.), Funding for higher education: New contexts and
rationales. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Zumeta, W. , & Finkle, D. (2007). California community colleges: Making them stronger and more affordable.
San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.